RAMILA DEVI K Vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who was ranked 143 and secured 49.5 marks, claims appointment as LD Typist in the University of Calicut in preference to the 6 th respondent, who is already appointed despite the fact that she secured only 48 marks in the examination and both of them belong to scheduled caste community.

(2.) The Calicut University invited applications for selection for appointment to the post of L.D. Typists. The petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste community, had submitted her application and appeared in the process of selection. She was included in the Rank List as Rank No. 143. At a time when appointments were not being made, petitioner along with others had approached this Court, for a direction to the University to make appointments against the vacant posts. That writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P2 judgment on 18.06.2013, along with a batch of cases. Petitioner filed this writ petition praying for a direction to the University to appoint her as LD Typist alleging that the University was not filling up the vacancies even after this Court in Ext.P3 judgment directed to fill up the available vacant posts of LD Typists from the rank list.

(3.) During the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner came to know about Ext.P9 order passed on 04.03.2016, in favour of one Smt. Rejani, who was given appointment seeing that the University committed a mistake in placing Smt. Rejani who got 50 marks at Rank No. 137 while placing Sumathi with 49 marks at Rank No.74. Petitioner thereupon submitted application under the Right to Information Act to inform her the marks secured by her in the test for LD Typist. As per Ext.P11B letter dated 29.04.2016, the Public Information Officer of the University, informed her that she secured 49.5 marks. On receipt of this, petitioner produced the documents along with I.A.No.10816/2016 and thereafter, amended the writ petition filing I.A.No.5345/2017, incorporating additional facts and grounds based on the information she collected and seeking a declaration that she is entitled to be given appointment in preference to the additional 3 rd respondent and for a direction to give her appointment with retrospective effect.