IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2009 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 25782 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR.SALEENA K.V., CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, VALLIKKUNNU, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MANAGER, MALABAR CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, CALICUT-673 001. 2. THE CHAIRMAN AND GOVERNING BODY, MALABAR CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, CALICUT-673 001. 3. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CALICUT. 4. DR.SUJA S., C/O. MANAGER, MALABAR CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, CALICUT-673 001. ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR FOR R1 & 2 SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No. 25782/2009-P ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 29th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an applicant to the post of Lecturer in Malayalam in Malabar Christian College, Kozhikode. She is a Post Graduate in Malayalam and has passed the National Eligibility Test and M.Phil in Malayalam. She has also secured Doctorate in Malayalam. 2. There was a dispute regarding the selection, pursuant to the interview conducted on 16/09/2008, which was resolved by a judgment of this Court in W.P.(C).No.35461/2008 [Ext.R2(a)]. This Court directed respondents 2 and 3 therein to submit the papers to the Selection Committee to finalise it in terms of the directions contained therein. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the Selection Committee proceeded with the matter in violation of the directions issued by this Court and the specific provisions of the Statute. It is also contented that there was no direction by this Court to conduct selection process de novo. 4. The second respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit justifying the selection and appointment of the fourth respondent. It is averred in the counter affidavit that pursuant to the selection, the Manager W.P.(C). No.25782/2009 -:2:- issued an order of appointment dated 20/08/2009, to the fourth respondent who is ranked first in the list prepared by Selection Committee and the fourth respondent joined duty on 09/09/2009. 5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the appointment is yet to be approved by the Syndicate and, therefore, the objections regarding the mode of selection which is raised in Ext.P12 letter submitted by the Subject Expert of the Selection Committee and, the representation submitted by the petitioner produced as Ext.P14 may be considered before the Syndicate approves the appointment made by the Selection Committee. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the petitioner may be served with a copy of the final proceedings of the University along with the appointment order so that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the final order passed by the University, she may be entitled to proceed in terms of the Statute. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that opportunity may be given to them to submit objections to Exts.P12 and P14. 6. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- W.P.(C). No.25782/2009 -:3:- i. The third respondent will consider Exts.P12 and P14 along with the objections which may be filed by the second respondent against the same before taking a decision on the approval of appointment of the fourth respondent. ii. After the University takes a final decision, if the petitioner makes a written application, then the copy of the proceedings containing the decision taken by the University along with a copy of the order of appointment of the fourth respondent will be issued to the petitioner by the second respondent without any delay. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms