Kerala High Court
Jincy Thomas vs The Kerala Agricultural University on 9 October, 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/12TH BHADRA, 1935
WP(C).No. 33820 of 2011 (B)
----------------------------
PETITIONER :
--------------------
JINCY THOMAS, W/O.BINI JOSEPH,
PUTHENKARY, CMC 18, CHERTHALA.
BY ADVS.SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR
SMT.PREEJA P.VIJAYAN
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
REPRESENTED BY TEH REGISTRAR, VELLANIKKARA
THRISSUR-680 656.
BY ADVS. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA, SC
SRI.K.P.MUJEEB, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-09-2013,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
...2/-
WP(C).No. 33820 of 2011 (B)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MERIT AWARDED TO PETITIONER AT
THE CONVOCATION HELD ON 18.3.2012.
EXT.P2 COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 9.10.2007 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3 COPY OF THE SELECT LIST PUBLISHED IN NOTIFICATION DATED
28.6.2008.
EXT.P4 COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 18.6.2009.
EXT.P5 COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 17.4.2010.
EXT.P6 COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 13.8.2010 IN WP(C) NOS.
14123, 19465, 19490 AND 19655/2010.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
Mn
C.T.RAVIKUMAR.J.
=================
W.P.C.NO.33820 Of 2011
=====================
Dated this the 3rd day of September 2013.
JUDGMENT
-----------------
Pursuant to the notification issued by the Kerala Agricultural University dated 09.10.2007 the petitioner submitted application for selection to the post of Assistant Professor in Plant Pathology. In the selection list drawn pursuant to the selection process she was assigned rank No.14. The specific contention of the petitioner is that persons holding rank No.12 up to were given appointment from the said list and that despite the issuance of orders of appointment two of them did not join duty. It is the further contention of the petitioner is that prior to the expiry of Ext.P3 rank list the said non- joining duty vacancies occurred and therefore according to the petitioner that she is entitled to get the benefit of Ext.P6 judgment. The expiry of Ext.P3 rank list cannot be worked out against her in the light of Ext.P6 judgment. In fact, according to the petitioner under similar circumstances the petitioners in the writ petitions which were disposed as per Ext.P6 were directed to be considered for appointments despite the expiry of the rank list in question.
I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also also the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent. In view of the submissions referred above, I am W.P.C.NO.33820 Of 2011 2 inclined to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment from Ext.P3 rank list in the light of Ext.P6 judgment. It shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE R.AV