IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 6219 of 2009(V) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY TYPIST APPLICANT'S FORUM P.O. CAICUT UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY K.E. CHARU, AYYAPANKANDY HOUSE, NORTH VALLIKKUNNU, MALAPPURAM 673 314. 2. K.E. CHARU, S/O. K.E. RAMAN, AGED 39 YEARS, VALLIKKUNU, MALAPPURAM 673 314. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.M.SAJJAD RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, P.O. CALICUT UNIVERSITY-673635,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, P.O. CALICUT UNIVERSITY – 673 635, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY SC- P.C.SASIDHARAN FOR UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P(C) No. 6219 of 2009 -V --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th February, 2009. J U D G M E N T The first petitioner is an association of applicants who have applied for appointment to the post of LD Typist in the University of Calicut. The second petitioner is an applicant for the said post and a member of the first petitioner association. 2. By Exhibit P1 notification dated 13.11.1992, the University of Calicut invited applications from eligible persons for appointment to the post of LD Typist. The last date stipulated in Exhibit P1 was 28.12.1992. The second petitioner and other members of the first petitioner applied pursuant to Exhibit P1. The selection process was however not completed. The petitioners did not move this Court to compel the University to finalise the selection process initiated as per Exhibit P1. Some of the candidates who had applied pursuant to Exhibit P1 were appointed by the University on daily wage basis. Later the University issued Exhibit P2 notification dated 17.6.2008 inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of LD Typist. In Exhibit P2 it is stipulated that candidates who have submitted applications pursuant to Exhibit P1 can apply, but they need not remit the application fee. By Exhibit P2 the upper age limit for W.P(C) No. 6219 of 2009 -V 2 such candidates was also raised to 50 years as on 1.1.2007. 3. After Exhibit P2 notification was issued, the petitioners moved the Vice Chancellor of the Calicut University and the Syndicate of the University requesting that a portion of the vacancies may be earmarked and reserved for the candidates who have applied pursuant to Exhibit P1 notification issued in the year 1992. They requested that a separate rank list should be prepared from among the applicants who have applied pursuant to Exhibit P1, that 60% of the vacancies should be reserved for such applicants and that selection pursuant to Exhibit P2 should be restricted to the remaining 40% of the vacancies. In this writ petition they seek a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the University of Calicut to provide reservation to the candidates who have applied pursuant to Exhibit P1 notification. 4. I have heard Shri.V.A.Muhammed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The pleadings disclose that though the University of Calicut had issued Exhibit P1 notification way back in the year 1992 inviting applications from eligible persons for appointment to the post of LD Typist, and the members of the first petitioner association and the second petitioner had applied pursuant to Exhibit P1, the selection process initiated by Exhibit P1 was not completed. Later, the University issued Exhibit P2 notification dated 17.6.2008 and W.P(C) No. 6219 of 2009 -V 3 also permitted the candidates who had applied in 1992 to apply and also raised the upper age limit of such candidates to 50 years as on 1.1.2007. What the petitioners seek is that two separate ranked lists should be prepared and that 60% of the vacancies should be earmarked to be filled up from among those who have applied pursuant to Exhibit P1. 5. I am afraid that the petitioner's claims cannot be entertained. The petitioners did not move this Court seeking a direction to the University to proceed with and complete the selection process initiated as per Exhibit P1. It was only after Exhibit P2 notification was issued that they protested and moved the authorities with a request that two separate ranked lists should be prepared and that 60% of the vacancies should be earmarked for those who have applied pursuant to Exhibit P1. The University has in Exhibit P2 permitted them to apply for the post by raising the upper age limit to 50 years as on 1.1.2007. The petitioners are also exempted from paying the application fee. The petitioners became eligible to apply only by reason of the concession extended to them in Exhibit P2. With the issuance of Exhibit P2, Exhibit P1 stands cancelled and therefore the petitioners cannot claim at this distance of time that the University should go ahead with Exhibit P1 notification. Their right was only to be W.P(C) No. 6219 of 2009 -V 4 considered for selection and that has not been denied to them in Exhibit P2. Exhibit P2 a matter of fact, enables the second petitioner and the members of first petitioner association to apply. They are also exempted from paying the application fee. The upper age limit has also been raised to 50 years as on 1.1.2007 in order to enable them to apply. In such circumstances, the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners cannot be granted. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE //True Copy// PA to Judge ab W.P(C) No. 6219 of 2009 -V 5 W.P(C) No. 6219 of 2009 -V 6 W.P(C) No. 6219 of 2009 -V 7 W.P(C) No. 6219 of 2009 -V 8