High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 11 KL CK 0342

Milton P. Fernadez vs The Sree Sankaracharya University of The Vice Chancellor

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 18 November 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
R.P. No. 945 of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

15 paragraphs · 343 words

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—This review petition is filed by the writ Petitioner pointing out that in the University, even though only one post

of Binder was notified, in another vacancy of Binder one Smt. Valsala was appointed on daily wage basis and the said temporary appointment is

continuing even after publication of the ranked list and, therefore, the basis on which the judgment is rendered is liable to be reviewed. A reading of

Annexure-I judgment will show that this Court was of the view that the notification published only governed one vacancy and there was no

indication to show that the ranked list prepared pursuant to the selection process will be in force so as to fill up vacancies which may arise during

the currency of the ranked list also. It is also mentioned in paragraph (4) of the judgment that during the live period of the ranked list, no vacancy

has arisen for enabling them to make appointment of the second rank holder. In support of the plea, the Petitioner has produced Annexure-II, a

reply given under the Right to Information Act. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for theUniversity, even going by the answer to

question No. 1, the sanctioned strength of the post of Binder is only one. Also going by answer to question No. 3 it will show that one Smt. Valsa

A.K was provisionally engaged for some period and there is no allegation that she is even now continuing.

2.

Evidently, this Court adjudicated the right of the Petitioner, the second rank holder, for appointment in a further vacancy as the first rank holder

was already appointed. The vacancy notified is only one. It is in that circumstance, it was held that this Court cannot direct the Petitioner to be

appointed.

3.

There is no apparent error in the Judgment. Even the circumstances pointed out by the Petitioner herein are not sufficient to direct the

appointment of the Petitioner. Therefore, the review petition is not liable to be entertained and the same is dismissed. No costs.