Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. By the judgment under appeal, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in P.S.Ramamohana Rao v. A.P.Agricultural University and another [(1997) 8 SCC 350], and the judgments of  W.A.751/12 - : 2 :-

this Court in Sivasankara Kaimal v University of Calicut [2003 (1) KLT 146] and Cochin University of Science and Technology v. Joseph James [2005 (4) KLT 555], the learned Single Judge held that the post of Director, Department of Physical Education is a teaching post, attracting the provisions contained in Chapter III of the Kerala University First Statute 1977 and that therefore the selection process completed by the University leading to the appointment of the 2nd respondent, now deceased, is illegal. On that basis, the learned Single Judge directed the University to constitute a selection committee and to select a suitable candidate from among the candidates, who applied for the post in response to Ext.P1.

For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants.

11. The learned counsel for the appellants lastly contended that once the learned Single Judge has held the selection illegal, the learned Single Judge should not have ordered that fresh selection to be undertaken by the University should be confined to the  W.A.751/12 - : 9 :-

candidates, who had applied for the post in response to Ext.P1 notification alone. As we have already seen that Ext.P1 notification was issued in 22.5.2007 and more than seven years have lapsed since then. Therefore, today, if, the fresh selection is ordered to be confined to the remaining candidates who responded to Ext.P1, in that process, apart from restricting the field of choice, this Court will be depriving opportunity to many persons who would have subsequently become eligible to contest for the post of Director. However, at the same time, respondents 1 and 3, who had applied in response to Ext.P1 notification and still have a right to be considered in the selection cannot also be rendered ineligible. In such a situation, we feel that the most appropriate course to be adopted by the University is to re-notify the post inviting applications specifying that the persons who had validly submitted their applications in response to Ext.P1 will also be eligible and considered along with other candidates, who submit applications in response to such re-notification. It is directed that the University shall complete the selection process as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of  W.A.751/12 - : 10 :-