LAWS(KER)-2014-10-264

BINEESH GOPAL C.G. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On October 24, 2014
Bineesh Gopal C.G. Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE all these writ petitions involve a common issue, they taken up for consideration together and disposed by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the reference to facts and the exhibits is from W.P.(C) No. 29072/2011.

(2.) IN connection with an appointment to the post of sweeper cum cleaner in the 2nd respondent University, Ext. P1 notification dated 30.12.2008 was published, inviting applications from interested candidates. The petitioners in the aforementioned writ petitions had applied and were called for a written test on 14.08.2010. Thereafter, the petitioners were included in a short -list of candidates, who were found eligible to be called for an interview, and interview memos were also sent to the petitioners to appear for the interview, on various dates in November, 2011. In the meanwhile, challenging the conduct of Page 2 the written test by the Selection Committee constituted under the Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as '1986 Act'), W.P.(C). No. 27495/2010 was filed by certain candidates. The said writ petition was dismissed by a judgment dated 22.10.2010 rejecting the contentions of the petitioners therein. In a writ appeal preferred against the said judgment, a Division Bench of this Court, by Ext. P3 judgment dated 04.11.2010, found that there was no substance in the allegations made by the appellants in the writ appeal with regard to the alleged discrepancies that had crept into the conduct of the written test. It was accordingly that the writ appeal also was dismissed by the said judgment. It would appear that thereafter, when the 2nd respondent University was all set to proceed with the interviews that were scheduled, Ext. P6 communication dated 28.10.2011 was received by them from the Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department directing them to stop further proceedings for recruitment of candidates to the post of sweeper cum cleaner. A perusal of Ext. P6 would indicate that the Government, while issuing the direction in Ext. P6, was purportedly acting in accordance with Section 50 of the 1986 Act. Following Ext. P6, the Government also appointed the Director of Collegiate Education as an enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry that was ordered in Ext. P6.

(3.) I heard learned senior counsel Sri C.P. Sudhakara Prasad appearing on behalf of the petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 29072/2011, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the other writ petitions, Sri. Millu Dandapani, learned standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent University and the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent.