IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2009 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 10521 of 2009(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. FR. JAMES AERTHAYIL, MANAGER, ST. JOSEPH'S COLLEGE, MOOLAMATTOM, IDUKKI. 2. FR. THOMAS MALIEKKAL, PRINCIPAL, ST. JOSEPH'S COLLEGE, MOOLAMATTOM, IDUKKI. BY ADVS. MR.BABY ISSAC ILLICKAL MR.ISAAC KURUVILLA ILLIKAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. JOY MICHAEL, MOOKENTHOTTAM, KALOOR.P.O, KALLOORKAD, ERNAKULAM - 686 668. 2. THE DIRECTOR, COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE REGISTRAR, MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. 4. MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.A.J.VARGHESE FOR R2 BY ADV. MR.T.A.SHAJI, SC. FOR UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P(C) No. 10521 of 2009 -I ------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of April, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioners are the Manager and Principal of St.Joseph’s College, Moolamattom. They challenge Ext.P9 order passed by the Mahatma Gandhi University Appellate Tribunal, setting aside Ext.P6 order passed by the first petitioner dismissing the first respondent from service. In my opinion if the petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P9 order, their remedy lies in filing a revision petition in this Court as provided Section 63(9) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as “Act” for short. Ext.P9 order was passed on 26.12.2008. This writ petition was presented on 27.2.2009. Since Section 63(10) of the Act provides that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 shall apply to proceedings under sub section (9) of Section 63 of the Act, the petitioner can put forward this fact also while explaining the delay in filing the civil revision petition. In these circumstances I hold that the writ petition is not maintainable. It is accordingly dismissed reserving liberty with the petitioner to move this Court by filing a revision petition as provided Section 63(9) of Act. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE //True Copy// ab PA to Judge