High Court Kerala High Court

Dr.K.T.Ravindran vs Kannur University on 30 July, 2008

Kerala High Court
Dr.K.T.Ravindran vs Kannur University on 30 July, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 17823 of 2008(Y)


1. DR.K.T.RAVINDRAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. KANNUR UNIVERSITY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. DR.T.V.RAMAKRISHNAN, S.E.S.COLLEGE,

3. THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR THE POST

                For Petitioner  :SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.SASEENDRAN,SC,KANNUR UNIVERSITY

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :30/07/2008

 O R D E R
        THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

           W.P.(C)No.17823 of 2008-V

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

     Dated this the 30th day of July, 2008.

                   JUDGMENT

The short issue raised by the petitioner, the

second among those ranked for the post of Course

Director in the Department of Mathematics, going

by Ext.P2, is that the second respondent, who is

ranked first, is unqualified as on the last date

of receipt of applications in terms of Ext.P1

notification. Petitioner relies on different

materials. The second respondent relies on

different materials. The comparative

qualification is a matter on which the competent

Authority in terms of the statute has to decide.

The Syndicate is shown to have considered the

issue and issued Ext.P2, among other things,

requiring a further verification by the Standing

Committee on Staff, regarding the complaint about

the teaching experience of the second respondent

as on the date of the application. This means

WP(C)17823/2008 -: 2 :-

that the Standing Committee on Staff has to look

into that aspect and report back to the

Syndicate which is an Authority in terms of the

Act. It is that Authority which has to take a

decision. Therefore, without expressing anything

on merits, this writ petition is disposed of

ordering that the first respondent will ensure

that the Standing Committee on Staff reports

back to the Syndicate forthwith, taking into

consideration all relevant aspects and materials

regarding the matter called for from the

Standing Committee on Staff as per Ext.P2. The

matter needs to be expedited because, the post

is only a short term one. It is clarified that

the Standing Committee on Staff is not tied down

by this judgment to consider only such materials

as are now on record. Any further action to

appoint the petitioner or the second respondent

will be only on the basis of the Syndicate

decision.

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.

Sha/300708