Allowed

Dr.Jisha C.K v. Dr.Soman Kannachamkuttykuni

Kerala HC14 Mar 2017RP/1090/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the review petition filed by a petitioner appointed as a lecturer. The court recalled the judgment under review which had directed consideration of a representation for re-conduct of interviews, stating the order was issued without notice and caused prejudice.

What did the court decide?

The judgment dated 7.11.2016 in W.P(C).No.35482 of 2016 is recalled to remove prejudice caused by lack of notice.

Dr.Jisha C.K Vs Dr.Soman Kannachamkuttykuni — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/23RD PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

RP.No. 1090 of 2016 (I) ----------------------WP(C). 35482/2016 DATED 07-11-2016

¶6

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/2ND RESPONDENT:

¶7

DR.JISHA C.K., AGED 35, W/O.VIJISH T., LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF FOLKLORE, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, RESIDING AT THATTARAKKAL HOUSE, CHENAKKALANGADI P.O., THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 636

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM SMT.K.P.AMBIKA SMT.A.A.SHIBI SRI.A.L.NAVANEETH KRISHNAN SMT.M.A.JASEELA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT:

¶10

1. DR.SOMAN KANNACHAMKUTTYKUNI, KANNACHAMKUTTYKUNI HOUSE, KATALUR P.O., THIKODI (VIA), CALICUT-673 529

¶11

2. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THENHIPALAM, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., MALAPPURAM-673635

¶12

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM) SRI.K.R.GANESH R2 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UNIVERSITY

¶13

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

SKG

¶15

RP.No. 1090 of 2016 (I)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES

¶18

A1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.11.2016 IN WPC.NO.35482/2016

¶19

A2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY DATED 06.05.2016

¶20

A3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 27.12.2010 PRODUCED AS EXT.P1 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3685 OF 2012 THAT LED TO EXT.P8 JUDGMENT IN WRIT APPEAL NO.1676/2013.

¶21

A4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE UGC DATED 30.8.2016

¶22

A5 TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINE DATED 6.11.2008

¶23

A6 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 2.12.2016 FILED AGAINST THE REQUEST OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

SKG

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶30

R.P.No. 1090 of 2016 in

¶31

W.P(C).No.35482 of 2016

¶32

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 14^th March, 2017

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

The judgment under review was issued on 7.11.2016, directing the consideration of Exhibit P11 representation preferred by the petitioner seeking re-conduct of all interviews held after 18.9.2010. Though review petitioner was the 2^nd respondent in the writ petition, since the prayer was only for a consideration of the representation, the writ petition came to be disposed of directing that the representation be duly considered. The review petition was filed contending that the appointment of the petitioner was the subject matter of a writ petition and she had been appointed pursuant to Exhibit P4 judgment of a Division Bench of this Court on 12.8.2014. The review petition was, therefore, admitted and the judgment under review was stayed. When the review was taken up today, learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that the judgment under review causes serious prejudice to her and should not have been issued without notice.

¶35

In the above view of the matter, the review petition is allowed. The judgment dated 7.11.2016 in W.P(C).No.35482 of 2016 is recalled.

¶36

Post the writ petition as per roster.

¶37

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶38

vgs16/3

Dr.Jisha C.K v. Dr.Soman Kannachamkuttykuni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Jisha C.K v. Dr.Soman Kannachamkuttykuni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.P.Jalajakumar Vs State of Kerala

Satheesan Vs the Deputy Director

Cheriya Koya Vs Lakshadweep State Wakf Board and Others

C.K.John Valsalam Vs Fr.Jacob

K.O. Jose Vs Ajith Patil

A.K.Sreekumaran Vs M.G.Rajamanikkam, Ias, M.D. Ksrtc