IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2009 / 19TH ASHADHA 1931 CRP.No. 341 of 2009() --------------------- (AGAINST ORDER IN I.A.NO.12/2009 IN THE UNIVERSITY APPEAL NO.5/2009 OF THE KERALA UNIVERSITY APPELLATE TRUBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ) REVN. PETITIONER(S): 1ST RESPONDENT -------------------------- THE MANAGER, SREE NARAYANA TRUST, S.N.TRUST BUILDINGS KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT AND 2-ND RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------- 1. DR. N. UNNIKRISHNAN, SELECTION GRADE LECTURER IN POLITICS, S.N.COLLEGE, CHENGANNOOR. 2. THE KERALA UNIVERSITY, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR,UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS, PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2009, ALONG WITH C.R.P.NO.348 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------- C.R.P. Nos.341 & 348 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 10th July, 2009 O R D E R Raman, J. These two revision petitions arise of a common order passed by the Kerala University Appellate Tribunal in I.A.Nos.11 & 12 of 2009 in University Appeal No.5 of 2009. 2. The respondent was the former Principal of S.N.College, Chengannur, against whom disciplinary action was initiated by the revision petitioner. It was challenging the said disciplinary action that the appeal was preferred. I.A.Nos.11 and 12 of 2009 were filed for stay and also for reinstatement in service. By the impugned order, both the petitions were allowed. The removal of the first respondent from service is stayed and revision petitioner herein was also directed to re- C.R.P.Nos.341 & 348 of 2009 2 instate the first respondent in service, against which, the present two revisions are preferred. 2. Heard. If the first respondent was already removed, then only the question of reinstating him in service will arise. But if he is not removed from service, then only the question of granting stay will arise. Therefore, allowing both the applications, prima facie appears to be wrong. That itself shows that the Tribunal did not apply its mind regarding the status of the employee as on the date of passing of the order. That apart, since the very relief is against the dismissal, the question of re- instating him by an interim order could not have ordinarily been made. Only if the dismissal is found to be wrong, the question of re-instating him in service would arise. But as on today, by virtue of the order passed, the first respondent was re-instated and he had also attained the age of superannuation. The question now raised is academic as far as the present revisions are concerned and has become infructuous. Hence, these revision petitions are dismissed as infructuous. However, we C.R.P.Nos.341 & 348 of 2009 3 may add to say that the interim order passed by the Tribunal, in no way, shall affect the final adjudication of the dispute on its merits, if they are pending and otherwise permissible under law. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN , JUDGE. nj.