BABU V. Vs. UNIVERSITY OF KANNUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were included in Ext.P1 ranked list published by the Kannur University, the 1st respondent. It was published on 25.07.2009. The validity of the list was for three years, viz., upto 24.07.2012. The petitioners filed the captioned writ petition after four months since the expiry of the validity of Ext.P1 ranked list. Evidently, their grievance is against the action on the part of the syndicate of the 1st respondent University in declining to ratify the order of the 2nd respondent, the Vice Chancellor, extending the period of validity of Ext.P1 by one more year. Ext.P5 is the copy of the relevant extract of the Syndicate resolution taken in its meeting held on 26.07.2012.

(2.) The petitioners raised various allegations to assail Ext.P5 and they seek the following reliefs:

(3.) A statement dated 11.12.2012 was filed by the Standing Counsel for the University on behalf of the respondent. Subsequently, a counter affidavit was also filed by the respondent. Along with the same, C.M.Application No.4011 of 2013 was filed to condone the delay in filing the counter affidavit. A reply affidavit was filed by the petitioners to the said counter affidavit. In this context it is also relevant to note that pending the writ petition the petitioners have filed I.A No.9066 of 2013 with the prayer to issue appropriate direction to the University not to make any appointment through employment exchange and to continue the petitioners on provisional/contract basis in the interest of justice. Obviously, such a prayer was made taking note of a statement, in the statement filed on behalf of the respondents by the Standing Counsel dated 11.12.2012 to the effect that after declining to ratify the action of the Vice Chancellor in extending the validity of Ext.P1 ranked list in the Syndicate meeting held on 26.07.2012 vide item No.2012.507. Further more the Syndicate resolved to engage Peon/Watchman through employment exchange, if required and also not to make any kind of appointment from Ext.P1 list even on ad-hoc basis. It is also stated in the statement that subsequent to the said resolution of the Syndicate, the District Employment Officer was requested to forward a list of candidates for preparation of a panel to make engagement against the future vacancies. No order was passed by this Court on the petition for direction, obviously in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Hariyana v. M.P.Sharma , 1994 AIR(SC) 1804 . In that case, the grievance was against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Hariyana while disposing of writ petition. The High Court disposed of the writ petition holding that keeping the candidates in the waiting list could not create any light in their favour in the posts, but if the appellant employer for administrative exigency fill up the post on ad-hoc basis, then it would be open to the appellant to appoint the candidates waiting in the list in the order of merit. The list in question had expired and therefore, it was contended that candidates in the waiting list got no right to claim appointment. The Apex Court held: