ST.PETERS COLLEGE TRUST Vs. REEJA JOSE P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The review petitioner, who was not a party to the Writ Petition, is aggrieved by the observations and the directions in the judgment. The writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein, seeking to set aside Ext.P3 order by which the writ petitioner was excluded from answer script valuation duties in the M.G University. Ext.P3 order was issued during the course of enquiry against the writ petitioner and two others on the basis of complaints of mass failure in a particular exam due to the indifferent manner in which the answer scripts were valued. It was alleged in the writ petition that, even though the writ petitioner had appeared before the Enquiry Commission on 10.04.2015, the enquiry was not completed, thereby causing substantial prejudice to the writ petitioner.

(2.) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the University, it was admitted that, the petitioner had appeared before the Enquiry Commission on 10.04.2015 and that the process of enquiry is continuing and final report will be filed without delay.

(3.) Even when the writ petition was finally argued, neither the petitioner nor the respondents were able to submit as to whether the enquiry had attained finality. It was in such circumstances that the writ petition was disposed of, directing the second respondent to take immediate steps for concluding the enquiry conducted pursuant to Ext.P2 notice and to take a decision on the report of the Enquiry Commission, if such report was not already received.