DHANUSHA P.B. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned writ petitions are materially connected in respect of appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Electronics & Communication Engineering at the Sree Chitra Thirunal College of Engineering, Thiruvananthapuram, as per the rank list drawn, and the procedure adopted for ad-hoc appointment, respectively. Therefore, I heard them together and propose to deliver this common judgment. Facts and documents available from W.P.(C) No.36112 of 2015 are relied upon for the disposal of the writ petitions. Brief material facts are as follows:

(2.) Petitioner is a Post Graduate in Applied Electronics, passed in First Class with Distinction from Anna University, Chennai, in the year 2008. The 2nd respondent is an Engineering College managed by the State of Kerala. Case of the petitioner is that, taking into account the strength of the students and going by AICTE norms, there are 41 vacancies of Teachers in the College. But, presently there are only 21 permanent teachers including one Professor. Therefore, 20 vacancies are available to be filled up. Out of the 20 vacancies, 6 vacancies are filled up by Ad-hoc Assistant Professors. In order to fill up the vacancies, Ext.P5 rank list was prepared after a written test and interview, and published on 20.06.2013. The rank list had a validity of two years, which was extended for a further period of six months, which was due to expire on 20.12.2015. Petitioner is rank No.9 in the list and hence she is entitled to get appointment if further appointments are made applying communal rotation, being a member of Ezhava community.

(3.) It is also pointed out that, petitioner is entitled to get appointment in the next vacancy as few appointments are already made from Ext.P5 rank list, and she is Rank No.1 in the category of Ezhava. The case projected by the petitioner is that, it is a deliberate inaction on the part of the respondents with the intention to make fresh selection after denying opportunity to the candidates already selected. Therefore, the inaction on the part of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal.