IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30886 of 2009(E)
1. PADMINI P.V.,LD TYPIST (TEMPORARY)
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM
... Respondent
2. SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
3. REGIONAL INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL
4. SHEENA T.A, BEENA COTTAGE, T.C.27/1639
For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
For Respondent :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :30/11/2009
O R D E R
T.R RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J.
-------------------------
W.P ( C) No.30886 of 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 30th November,2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner herein is working as L.D Typist on daily
wage basis in the office of the 3rd respondent. She joined
service as L.D Typist (temporary) in the office of the 2nd
respondent on 27.9.1997.
2. A notification was published in the year 1996 for
appointment to the post of L.D typist. A short list has
been published including 147 candidates. Petitioner is
seeking to quash Ext.P4 short list in the writ petition.
3. Mainly it is contended that most of the
candidates included in the list are ineligible and many of
them did not possess the requisite qualifications. Some of
them have not even appeared for the written examination.
Thus the contention appears to be that ineligible
candidates have been allowed to participate in the written
test and have been finally included in the short list. In
Ground E it is stated that the 1st respondent even included
those candidates who have not applied in response to the
notification apart from the absentees of examination.
W.P ( C) No.30886 of 2009
2
4. In the light of the above, one of the main prayers
sought for in the writ petition is to quash Ext.P4 shortlist
prepared based on the original notification of the year 1996.
5. First respondent has filed a counter affidavit in the
matter. It is explained in paragraph 4 that only eligible
candidates are included in the shortlist. No unqualified
candidates or persons who have not appeared for the written
test have been included in the shortlist. It is also pointed out
that the procedure followed is strictly in terms of the Mahatma
Gandhi University Statute 1997. Paragraph 5 of the counter
affidavit shows that petitioner had appeared for the written
test with Registration No.1368 and could not qualify for the
skill test.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued
that the entire selection process has to be declared as vitiated
as there is long delay in conducting the tests.
7. A reading of the averments in the writ petition and
the grounds contained therein show that only vague
allegations have been made by the petitioner. The contentions
are so generalised that this Court cannot act upon the same
for granting any relief. Even though the petitioner alleges
want of qualification on the part of many of the candidates no
W.P ( C) No.30886 of 2009
3
specific averment has been made in respect of any of the
candidates included among the 147 candidates in Ext.P4.
Even though it is alleged that many of the candidates have not
appeared for the written examination the details are not
forthcoming even in the writ petition or in the reply affidavit
filed by the petitioner.
8. Even though the petitioner has filed an I.A seeking
for a direction to call for further materials, this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot conduct a
probe into the matter without any factual foundation in the
writ petition. It was up to the petitioner to allege specifically
the details regarding want of qualification and other
deficiencies on the part of any of the candidates who have
been shortlisted in Ext.P4. The appointment is yet to be made
Therefore, the writ petition fails and the same is
dismissed. This will be without prejudice to the right of the
petitioner to move any other authorities, if so advised. Not
Costs.
T.R RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
JUDGE
ma
W.P ( C) No.30886 of 2009
4
W.P ( C) No.30886 of 2009
5