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 2]

Kerala High Court

Mahatma Gandhi University Teachers vs The Mahatma Gandhi University on 3 June, 2008

Author: Koshy

Bench: J.B.Koshy, P.N.Ravindran

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 1116 of 2008()


1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY TEACHERS
                      ...  Petitioner
2. DR.N.RAJEEVKUMAR,READER (CLINICAL

                        Vs



1. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. DR. M.S.RAZEENA PADMAM,

3. DR.P.S.SUKUMARAN, READER

                For Petitioner  :SRI.KRB.KAIMAL (SR.)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :03/06/2008

 O R D E R
                              J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.
                                  --------------------------------------
                                      W.A.No.1116 OF 2008
                                  -------------------------------------
                                        Dated 3rd June, 2008

                                            JUDGMENT

Koshy,J.

The writ petition is filed for quashing Exts.P2, P4 and the appointment of third respondent as Lecturer and consequential promotions made. Ext.P2 is dated 19.1.1991. By Ext.P4 dated 26.10.94 second respondent was appointed as Guest Professor in Psychology with effect from 17.2.1994 . Third respondent was appointed as Lecturer on 12.12.1990 and Senior Grade Lecturer with effect from 24.6.1998. The association is challenging the initial appointments made in 1991 and 1994 in 2008. Learned single Judge correctly found that there is long delay of more than a decade in questioning the appointments. At this distance of time, we cannot set aside the appointments. Learned Judge also states that this is a service matter and it is for the aggrieved party to challenge the same according to the rules and not like a public interest litigation. In any event, we agree that there is unexplained laches on the part of the petitioners and we fully agree with the learned single Judge.

The appeal is dismissed.

J.B.KOSHY JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE tks