Suresh Kumar T.V. vs Represented Cochin Devaswom Board

Antony Dominic, J.—This appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C) No. 24062 of 2013 filed by the appellant. In pursuance of Ext. P2, the notification issued by the 1st respondent, the appellant applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Political Science. While his application was thus pending, the 1st respondent issued Ext. P3 notification inviting the applications afresh. It was challenging Ext. P3 notification the appellant filed the Writ Petition contending that, as a result of Ext. P3, those who became eligible after the last date specified in Ext. P2 notification had expired, were also considered and thus the zone of consideration was enlarged. According to the appellant, such an exercise was impermissible in view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others Vs. Chander Shekhar and Another, . However rejecting the contentions raised and upholding Ext. P3, in the light of Annexure-A produced by the 1st respondent along with their counter affidavit, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. It is accordingly this appeal is filed.

We heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent, the learned Government Pleader for the 4th respondent and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 5, 6, 7 & 9.

Before us also the learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the aforesaid submissions and also placed considerable reliance on Ashok Kumar''s case supra. However, respondents contended that, in the light of Annexure-A communication issued by the University, they had no option but to invite applications afresh. They also contended, while doing so, they had safe guarded interest of the applicants like the appellant, by providing a clause that, such candidates need not apply afresh. According to the respondents, none of the legal rights much less any fundamental right of the appellants are affected and that therefore the judgment of the learned Single Judge is perfectly legal.

We have considered the submissions made. Ext. P2 notification was issued by the 1st respondent on 03/4/2012. By this notification applications were invited to the post of Assistant Professors in the colleges established by the 1st respondent. The notification also specified that the applications shall be made within 30 days from the date of notification. It appears that in terms of the Calicut University Act and the Statutes, necessary intimation was given to the University for proceeding with the selection process. To that communication, University issued Annexure-A reply on 28/6/2013, which inter alia directed that the 1st respondent shall notify the posts afresh in compliance with norms for appointment specified by the University. It was accordingly that the 1st respondent issued Ext. P3 on 02/09/2013, complying with the requirements insisted by the University and also specifying that applications shall be made within a period of one month from the date of the notification. It was also specified that those who had applied in pursuance of Ext. P2 need not apply again.

The question is whether, in issuing Ext. P3 the 1st respondent has committed any illegality. In our view there is no such illegality committed by the 1st respondent. As we have already seen, when Ext. P2 was communicated to the University, the University found that the advertisement did not comply with the Statutes specified by it. Therefore University demanded the 1st respondent to notify the post afresh complying with Statutes. This necessitated the fresh advertisement. Accordingly Ext. P3 was issued, which satisfied the requirements specified by the University.

The further question raised is whether this amounts to enlargement of the zone of consideration. Insofar as this contention is concerned, we do not think that there is any substance in the contention raised. First of all, the candidates who had applied in response to Ext. P2 notification have only a right to be considered and nothing more than that. The question of enlargement of the zone of consideration, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, arises only if Ext. P2 notification was not cancelled. When Ext. P2 notification cancelled and Ext. P3 was issued the zone of consideration would stand determined in terms of Ext. P3 and not Ext. P2. Therefore, there is no substance in this plea.

There is also no substance in the plea and that, as a result of Ext. P3, candidates, who became eligible after the last date specified in Ext. P2, were considered. Insofar as the ratio laid down by the Ashok Kumar''s case supra is concerned that judgment in our view has no application to the facts of the case. That was a case where candidates were recruited ignoring the fact that the 33 of them did not qualify in the written examination. Secondly that was not a case where one advertisement was superseded by another advertisement as in this case. Therefore the principles laid down in that judgment if understood in the light of the facts discussed above shows that they are irrelevant for deciding this case. We therefore do not find any merit in the contentions raised.

Therefore the Writ Appeal is dismissed.