IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19217 of 2008(K)
1. SAVIER.J.S., LECTURER IN ELECTRICAL AND
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :22/10/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
=W.P.(C) = = = = = = = = = = =
No. 19217 OF 2008 K
= = =
Dated this the 22nd day of October 2008
J U D G M E N T
Ext. P2 is a notification issued by the 1st respondent inviting
application for the post of Assistant Professor in various disciplines
of Engineering including Electrical and Electronics Engineering.
Petitioner was one of the candidates applied for the post of
Electrical and Electronics Engineering and in Ext. P3 rank list he was
included at Sl. No. 10. Candidates upto Sl. No. 9 in the rank list
have been appointed.
2. In so far as this writ petition is concerned, the
controversy is in relation to one vacancy at the Government
Engineering College, Painavu, Idukki District. To that vacancy, Sl.
No. 9 in Ext. P3 rank list, Mr. Sreekumar was appointed by Ext. P6,
against a deputation vacancy of Dr. Mini K. Idicula, Assistant
Professor. However, it is seen that Sreekumar did not join the post
as is evident from Ext. P12. He was transferred and posted as Asst.
W.P.(C) No. 19217 OF 2008
-2-
Professor in Computer Science, Govt. Engineering College, Kannur
by Ext. P7. Accordingly, he joined the post at Kannur as ordered in
Ext. P7.
3. Petitioner claims that as Sreekumar has not joined the
post at the Govt. Engineering College, Painavu, there exists a
substantive vacancy and therefore he is liable to be appointed in
that vacancy. It is also his contention that though the validity period
of the list is not mentioned in Ext. P2, the list should be treated as
valid for 2 years, and if that be so, the vacancy having arisen within
the currency of the list he is entitled to be appointed. To contend
that the list should be valid for 2 years, Ext.P4 is relied on. In
support of his contention that the list is valid for 2 years the learned
counsel is also referring to Ext. P11 series of rank lists prepared in
respect of the posts in other disciplines notified by Ext. P2 and
submits that those rank lists were kept valid for 2 years. On this
basis, it is argued that there is no reason to keep the validity period
of Ext. P3 rank list for a period less than 2 years.
4. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In the
counter affidavit, it is admitted that Sreekumar was posted at
W.P.(C) No. 19217 OF 2008
-3-
Painavu against the deputation vacancy of Dr. Mini K. Idikkula.
However, it is stated that he was transferred and posted as Asst.
Professor in Computer Science, Govt. Engineering College, Kannur.
It is stated that there was no shifting of the post and that once a
duly qualified person joins the post of Asst. Professor in Govt.
Engineering College, Kannur, Sreekumar is liable to return to his
parent institution, viz. the Govt. Engineering College, Painavu,
Idukki, in the Electrical and Electronics Branch. Therefore, the
contention that is advanced in the counter affidavit is that there is
no substantive vacancy available in Painavu against which the
petitioner can be considered for appointment.
5. Though there is a controversy regarding the the validity
period of Ext. P3 select list, that is not the issue that was argued
against the petitioner. The question is whether there is a
substantive vacancy available against which the petitioner could be
considered for posting at Painavu, Idukki. As already noticed, it is
the specific contention of the respondents that the transfer and
posting of SreeKumar to Kannur is to the post of Asst. Professor in
Computer Science, although he was selected and included in Ext. P3
W.P.(C) No. 19217 OF 2008
-4-
rank list for the post in the Electrical and Electronics Engineering
discipline. According to the respondents he is liable to be returned
to the Govt. Engineering College, Painavu, once a duly qualified and
selected candidate joins the post of Asst. Professor in Computer
Science at Kannur. It is also stated that the selection process in this
regard has already been initiated. There is nothing on record to
indicate that Sreekumar is not liable to be reverted. If that be so, I
must accept the contention of the learned Govt. Pleader that there is
no substantive vacancy in Painavu to which the petitioner could be
considered. Therefore, in the absence of a substantive vacancy in
Painavu, the petitioner cannot claim appointment in the so called
vacancy which is not available in Painavu.
Writ petition fails and is dismissed. However, it is clarified
that in case without reverting Sreekumar to the post available in
Painavu if the respondents attempt to fill up the post otherwise, it
will be open to the petitioner to claim appointment irrespective of
the expiry of the ranked list.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
jan/-