AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The above writ petitions have been filed seeking to quash the notifications issued for selection to the post of Assistant Professor in History,
Botony and Law as well as non teaching posts in the 3rd respondent''s College. The contention was that the petitioner had been appointed against
a substantive vacancy of Assistant Professor in Commerce in the 3rd respondent''s College by the Manager. The appointment was pursuant to a
notification and selection conducted by a duly constituted selection committee. The appointment was also sent up for approval. However, the
selections and appointments made were cancelled by the Governing Body and the posts have been re-notified. It is stated that the proposal for
approval had therefore been rejected. The petitioner contends that the petitioner''s appointment which was in accordance with law, is liable to be
approved. It is further contended that the attested service book and original documents which had been forwarded to the University for approval
and which have been returned to the College are being withheld by the College in order to blackmail the petitioner.
Counter affidavits have been filed contending that the appointments made earlier based on an interview conducted on 22.7.2015 had been
cancelled by the Executive Committee in its meeting held on 4.6.2016. The University was also informed of this matter. It was thereafter that
Exhibit P6 notification was issued re-notifying the posts for fresh selection. The issue of competence of the then Secretary of the Trust as the
Manager of the College to complete the selection procedure without complying with the directions of the Executive Committee as also the validity
of the decisions taken cancelling the selections made have already been considered by this Court in W.P(C).No.19930 of 2016. It was found that
the appointments ought to have been made only with concurrence of the educational agency which was the appointing authority and that the
decisions cancelling the appointments were valid.
In the above view of the matter, nothing survives for consideration in these writ petitions, except for directing the respondents to return the
original documents of the petitioner which had been forwarded to the University for the purpose of approval by the then Manager to the petitioner.
The present Manager of the College shall intimate the petitioner as to the date on which the documents shall be made available and the petitioner or
his authorised representative will be permitted to collect the same on proper authentication and receipt. The writ petitions are dismissed subject to
the above direction.