Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Kerala High Court

V.Vikraman Nair vs University Of Kerala on 28 November, 2008

Author: Antony Dominic

Bench: Antony Dominic

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 32906 of 2008(P)


1. V.VIKRAMAN NAIR
                      ...  Petitioner
2. B.RAJENDRAN NAIR
3. A.JAYAKUMARAN NAIR
4. MOHANAKUMAR.K.
5. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR K.,
6. MOHANANKUMAR D
7. SASIDHARAN.V
8. RAJENDRAN D
9. BALACHANDRAN.S
10. CHANDRASEKHARAN.S
11. BAHA LAKRA
12. AJAYA KUMAR.T.V
13. RAJASEKHARAN NAIR.N
14. THULASIDAS R.V.
15. KRISHNAN.A.
16. VELAPPAN NAIR.S
17. BALACHANDRAN NAIR P
18. RETNAKARAN G
19. RAJUMON.G.
20. SHEEYABUDEEN A
21. SHAJAHAN E
22. RAJAN R .
23. WILSON.P,
24. REMANAN N

                        Vs



1. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.)

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :28/11/2008

 O R D E R
                   ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                   --------------------------
              W.P.(C) No.32906 OF 2008 (P)
              -------------------------------------


       Dated this the 28th day of November 2008


                       J U D G M E N T

Ext.P2 is a ranked list prepared by the respondent University for making appointments in the post of Security Guards in the University. The petitioners are included in the list and their complaint is that though there are 34 vacancies, those vacancies are not filled up. It is stated that the list is expiring on 31/12/2008, and that unless appointments are made immediately, the petitioners will be losing their chance for employment.

2. From the statement filed by the respondent University, it would appear that they are waiting for the concurrence of the Government for making appointments. Although they have admitted the existence of 34 vacancies, according to them, such concurrence is necessary for the reason that there is a ban in force against making appointments.

W.P.(C) No.32906/2008 -2-

3. However, it has come out during the hearing that such ban operates only as against creation of new posts. This position is confirmed by the learned standing counsel for the University also. If that be so, the ban cannot operate against the filling up of existing vacancies in sanctioned posts. Now that the University has admitted existence of 34 vacancies and also sought for concurrence of Government as per Ext.P6, not only the existence of vacancies but also the requirement of making appointments stand proved. If that be so, there should not be any reason for delaying appointments from Ext.P2 list, any further.

4. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing that the appointments shall be made from Ext.P2 list to the post of Security Guards to the vacancies, which are available and required to be filled up. This shall be done, without any further delay.

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg