MANAGER, U.C.COLLEGE, ALUVA Vs. R.RAJALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After prolonged litigation spread over almost a decade, wiser counsel has prevailed upon the parties, presumably on the gentle persuasion of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. We need only state the brief facts. A notification was made by the respondent - Union Christian College for appointment to various posts of Lecturers, including two in Economics. The vacancies were notified as available for open/community quota; one each. There was a selection conducted, in which, in the open quota, Smt.Rajalakshmi R. came in first. Smt.Liji Lawrance and Smt.Nino Baby came in as first and second rank holders under the community quota. Smt.Liji Lawrance was given appointment under the community quota and Smt.Nino Baby was given the second post. Smt.Liji Lawrance joined on 1.2.2010 and Nino Baby on 8.3.2010. Rajalakshmi challenged the appointment before this Court, which challenge was accepted by the learned Single Judge. A further challenge was made by the College and one of those appointed, being Nino Baby. Rajalakshmi in the meanwhile was appointed on 3.12.2010 in accordance with the directions of the learned Single Judge. In appeal, the Division Bench found that Smt.Rajalakshmi could be accommodated in a vacancy which arose on the deputation of a person, who was posted as a Pro-Vice- Chancellor. The writ appeal was disposed of approving the decision taken by the University in a complaint filed by the father of Nino Baby, which Rajalekshmi had challenged by a writ petition. Smt.Rajalakshmi again took up the matter in appeal before the Honourable Supreme Court. The Honourable Supreme Court though found that all the three persons were appointed, noticed that, the seniority issue of Rajalakshmi still looms large, which was not considered by the Division Bench. In such circumstances, there was a remand made for consideration of the same. The writ appeals are posted before us for consideration on the seniority issue.

(2.) As we noticed the father of Smt.Nino Baby made a complaint before the University, alleging that the selection was not proper and the marks awarded were not prefect. On that basis, an order was passed which was challenged in W.P. (C) No.28696 of 2011, produced as Ext.P14. By the order impugned in the writ petition, the Syndicate of the University made a suggestion of rearrangement insofar as Liji Lawrance being granted the first vacancy, the second arising conceded to Nino Baby and the last arising given to Rajalakshmi. If the parties were not agreeable for the same, it was also directed that there could be a fresh selection conducted.

(3.) As submitted before us, now the parties have no dispute pending between themselves. Sri.S.P.Aravindakshan Pillai, learned Counsel appearing for Nino Baby submits on instructions that his party does not have any objection in Rajalakshmi being granted seniority over her, especially to bring a quietus to the entire issue. Nino Baby only requests that during the period she worked, she may not be denied payment of salary. Sri.George Poonthottam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Rajalakshmi, also submits that she would not raise any claim on the salary during the period in which she has not worked in the College.