Kerala High Court
Fayiz.H vs The Secretary General on 31 December, 2019
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 10TH POUSHA, 1941
WP(C).No.35952 OF 2019(T)
PETITIONERS:
1 FAYIZ.H
AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. SAIDHALAVI
N.H. RAMAN CHIRACKAL, POOKOLATHUR,
PULPATTA P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 123.
2 RAHUL RAJ.R.,
AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. RAJENDRAN,
THENNILAZHIKATHU VEEDU, CHATHANOOR,
CHATHANOOR P.O. KOLLAM DISTRICT.
3 SREENITH MOHAN,
AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. MOHANAN T.S.,
THEKKEY GURUVAYUR, THAMARAYOOR P.O.
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.HARISH R. MENON
SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR
SRI.A.G.PRASANTH
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SECRETARY GENERAL
ASSOCIATION OF INDIA UNIVERSITIES AIU HOUSE,
16 KOTLA MARG, NEW DELHI 110 002.
2 THE REGISTRAR,
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
MALAPPURAM 673 635.
3 THE DIRECTOR OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION,
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, MALAPPURAM 673 635.
4 THE ORGANIZING SECRETARY,
ALL INDIA INTER UNIVERSITY ATHLETICS (MEN),
CHAMPIONSHIP, HEAD OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
ANDHRA UNIVERSITY, ANDHRA PRADESH 110 062.
SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
31.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
WP(C).No.35952 OF 2019(T)
JUDGMENT
This Court by Ext.P2 judgment dated 16.12.2019 disposed of the writ petition as follows:
"16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the proposition of law discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that, splitting up the 8 years period prescribed under Rule 4 of the Revised Eligibility Rules of the Association of Indian Universities has no nexus sought to be achieved, and the classification cannot stand the twin test of reasonableness discussed above, and is therefore, unconstitutional. Accordingly, I strike down the said classification made, and consequently, there will be a direction to the Universities to permit the students to participate for a period of 8 years between the age of 17 and 25 years, as is prescribed under Rule 4 of the Rules discussed above.
This writ petitions are allowed accordingly." -3-
WP(C).No.35952 OF 2019(T)
2. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition, seeking for similar reliefs as granted in Ext.P2 judgment, on the same cause of action.
3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v. C.Muddaiah [(2007)7 SCC 689), has held that once a direction is issued by a competent Court, it has to be complied/implemented by the respondents. If the order is not complied with by the party, the aggrieved party's remedy is to institute contempt of court proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, and not to file a fresh writ petition on the same cause of action.
4. In the light of authoritative pronouncement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I do not feel it necessary to entertain this writ petition for the purpose of reiterating the very same direction passed in Ext.P2 judgment.
5. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed, however, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to -4- WP(C).No.35952 OF 2019(T) move this Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, against persons who have not complied with the directions contained in Ext.P2 judgment.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS JUDGE Nkr/31.12.2019 -5- WP(C).No.35952 OF 2019(T) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ELIGIBILITY RULES. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.12.2019 IN WPC NO. 30133/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THAT STUDENT EVIDENCING REJECTION OF PARTICIPATION.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24.12.2019.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL