## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY**
**THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1941**
## **WP(C).No.19375 OF 2016(V)**
## **PETITIONER:**
**SREEJITH KANHOLI AGED 40 YEARS**
**S/O. K. SREEDHARAN VAISAKH, MALADATH THAZHAM, POST KOTTOOLI, CALICUT-16, (ASSISTANT CURATOR (EMP LD3979) DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT)**
**BY ADVS. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.S.SUJIN**
## **RESPONDENTS:**
- **1 THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT**
**2 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY PO.**
**SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, STANDING COUNSEL, CALICUT UNIVERSITY.**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
WP(C).No.19375 OF 2016(V)
2
## **J U D G M E N T**
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P5 order passed by the Joint Registrar of Calicut University dated 11.5.2016, whereby petitioner appointed as Assistant Curator in the Department of Zoology was informed that, he has been appointed as Assistant Curator in the Department of Zoology only w.e.f.31.1.2013, and therefore, his request to reckon the period from 25.1.2008 to the date of his appointment for service benefits was rejected, and for other related reliefs. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows;
2. As per a notification dated 17.12.2004 inviting applications to the post of Assistant Curator in the Department of Zoology, petitioner applied for the post. In the written test petitioner secured 72 out of 75 marks. Since there was delay in conducting interview, petitioner has approached this court and secured directions to conduct interview
WP(C).No.19375 OF 2016(V) 3
within a fixed time frame. Thereupon, the interview was conduced on 16.1.2008. One Sudheer.K. consequentially was selected to the post and he joined the service on 25.1.2008. Being aggrieved by the selection conducted, petitioner challenged the same by filing W.P.(C) No.4300/2008 before this court. The said writ petition was allowed and the selection and appointment of said Sudheer was set aside and further, the Selection Committee was directed to conduct interview of the candidates in the manner as laid down in the Rules framed by the University and to prepare fresh rank list and make appointments, at the earliest possible time and at any rate within three months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Accordingly, the selection was conducted and petitioner was appointed on and w.e.f.31.3.2013 and the petitioner is continuing in the post. The case projected by the petitioner is that, since the selection of Sudheer was set aside by this court and directed to reconduct selection process and petitioner is appointed, petitioner is entitled to get his
WP(C).No.19375 OF 2016(V) 4
appointment regularised on and w.e.f. 25.1.2008, the date on which Sudheer was appointed to the post.
3. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the respondent University disputing the claims and demands raised by the petitioner and also justifying the stand adopted in Ext.P5 order. Among other contentions it is stated that, the selection committee on 5.1.2006 considered the statement of marks of the written test and resolved to call those candidates, who have secured 40% and above marks in the written test for interview. The provisional list was published on 5.1.2006 and the interview was scheduled to be conducted on 11.1.2006. One Santhosh and another challenged the procedure adopted for conducting screening test to the post before this court by filing W.P.(C) No.36320/2005, which was dismissed on 2.8.2007. The selection committee has been constituted as per the provisions of the Calicut University First Statutes - 1977 and the interview has been conducted on 16.1.2008. Out of the 12 candidates, one Sudheer.K. stood first and he was appointed as Assistant Curator w.e.f. 25.1.2008 as
WP(C).No.19375 OF 2016(V) 5
per University Order dated 14.2.2008. The selection
and appointment of Sudheer.K. as is pointed out above
is challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P.(C) No.4300/2008 and as per Ext.P1 judgment dated 3.11.2008 the selection was set aside and ordered to conduct fresh interview. Other directions are also issued. The above judgment was challenged by filing
W.A.Nos.332 and 394 of 2009 and a Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ appeals and Ext.P1 judgment was set aside, evident from Ext.P2 judgment. Petitioner filed R.P.No.396/2009 and R.P.No.397/2009
in the above specified Writ Appeals and the review petitions were allowed and common judgment in the Writ Appeals were set aside. Resultantly directions contained in the judgment of the learned Single Judge has come into force. In the meanwhile Sudheer was relieved of his duties in the University service by retaining lien as per order dated 4.7.2009 for joining duty as Lecturer in Zamorin's Guruvayurappan College, Kozhikode. On the basis of the selection conducted and after review petitions were dismissed on 18.1.2013, ranked list were published on 19.1.2013
WP(C).No.19375 OF 2016(V) 6
and the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Curator in the Department of Zoology on and w.e.f.31.1.2013. Therefore, according to the respondent University, on the basis of the said appointment, petitioner is entitled to all eligible service benefits only with effect from his date of appointment. It is also pointed out that, petitioner is not entitled to make any claim on the basis of setting aside the selection as per Ext.P1 judgment since it was found that, in the select list there was 2[nd] rank holder viz., Smt. Anitha.P.V., who was not impleaded in the said writ petition and so also it is contended that, if the writ petition was allowed by setting aside the selection of Sudheer and directing appointment from the select list, that would have only inured to the benefit of 2[nd] rank holder. Moreover, it is contended that, the selection and appointment of Sudheer was set aside and further directed to conduct selection in the manner as laid down in the Rules framed by the University and prepare fresh rank list and made appointments and therefore, petitioner is not entitled to get any reliefs as is
WP(C).No.19375 OF 2016(V) 7
sought for in the writ petition.
4. I have evaluated the rival submissions made
across the Bar and I am of the considered opinion that, there is much force in the contentions
advanced by learned Standing Counsel for the
University for more reasons than the one. First of
all, petitioner was only the 3[rd] rank holder in the original select list prepared and therefore, even
assuming that the selection was set aside and directed to re-consider the select list, as such
petitioner would not have secured selection in view of the 2[nd] rank holder, Smt.Anitha.P.V. Moreover, it
was directed by this court as per Ext.P1 judgment
that, fresh selection is to be conducted and a rank
list is to be drawn and therefore, petitioner is not
entitled as of right to claim that, petitioner would have been appointed from the date when Sudheer was appointed and entitled to get all service benefits.
Such contention advanced by learned counsel for petitioner has no legal or factual foundation enabling the petitioner to secure the reliefs of
service benefits, notional appointment etc. from the
WP(C).No.19375 OF 2016(V) 8
date when Sudheer was appointed, which was set aside by this court as per Ext.P1 judgment. Moreover, the judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside
by the Division Bench in the Writ Appeals evident from Ext.P2 judgment and only reviewing the judgment as per Ext.P3 common order dated 15.10.2012 passed in the review petitions filed by the petitioner, the University could conduct selection and make the
appointment. Which thus means, there was no laches and negligence on the part of the University in conducting selection as directed by the learned Single Judge. Looking either way, I do not think, petitioner has made out any case for interference with the order.
5. Even though learned counsel for petitioner
has pressed into service the judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in LPA No.170 of 2014 dated 19.11.2014 in **Shri Balak Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others** [2015 1 ShimLC 505 and judgment of the Apex Court in **Sanjay Dhar v. Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission & another** [2000(8)SCC 182],
I am of the considered opinion that, the factual
WP(C).No.19375 OF 2016(V) 9
circumstances in the said judgments are entirely different and distinguishable from the facts and
circumstances discussed above. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of law laid down thereunder.
6. In the light of the discussions made above, I
do not think petitioner has made out any
arbitrariness, illegality or any legal infirmities
in Ext.P5 order passed by the University dated
11.5.2016 justifying interference of this court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Resultantly, writ petition fails, accordingly it is dismissed.
**Sd/-**
**SHAJI P.CHALY**
Smv
**JUDGE**
22.11.2019
WP(C).No.19375 OF 2016(V) 10
## **APPENDIX**
## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:**
|**P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.3.11.2008 IN**|
|---|---|
||**W.PC NO.4300/08.**|
|**P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.332 OF**|
||**2009**|
|**P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 15.10.2012 IN**|
||**RP.NO.397 OF 2009 IN W.A.NO.332/09**|
|**P4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.**|
||**26.3.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER**|
||**BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**|
|**P5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 11.5.2016 ISSUE**|
||**DBY THE RESPONDENT.**|
