IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 945 of 2010()
1. MILTON P.FERNADEZ, MILTON VILLA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF
... Respondent
2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :18/11/2010
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
R.P.No.945/2010
in W.P.(C). No.27702/2006-W
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 18th day of November, 2010
J U D G M E N T
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
R.P. No.945/2010
-:2:-
counsel for the University, 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.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
ms