IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 32225 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MEENAKUMARI.V.M.,D/O.KANNAN, 'NARAYANEEYAM' P.O.ANANDASRAMAM, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KANNUR UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR, MANGATTUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE REGISTRAR, KANNUR UNIVERSITY, MANGATTUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.M.SASEENDRAN,SC,KANNUR UNIVERSITY FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2008 ALONG WITH WP(C).NO.32226/08, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).Nos.32225/08 & 32226/08 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard both sides. 2. In these writ petitions, responding to Ext.P1, a notification issued by the respondent University inviting candidates for considering them for the post of Lecturer in General Education, petitioners submitted their applications and were also interviewed. Finally by Ext.P2, they were intimated of having been selected for appointment and asking them to report at the University with certificates including equivalency certificates to the effect that the M.Ed degree secured by them from the Annamalai University is recognized as an equivalent qualification to M.Ed degree from Kannur University. There upon these writ petitions were filed and the main contention that is raised is that so long as Ext.P1 notification did not prescribe production of WP(c).No.32225/08 & anor. 2 equivalency certificate as a condition, it is incompetent for the University demand production of equivalency certificate. 3. I am not impressed by the argument. In the statement filed by the University has stated that in view of the wide spread complaints that were received regarding the irregular admissions in the Annamalai University, they are demanding equivalency certificates. If so, the University cannot be faulted for issuing a communication requiring the production of a equivalency certificate. But then, such a certificate can be issued by the University itself and therefore, petitioners should be given an opportunity to apply for the same and if issued, produce such certificate in compliance with Ext.P2. 4. Therefore I direct that, within one week from today it will be open to the petitioners to make application to the University, in which case, within 4 weeks of receipt of the applications, the competent authority of the University will consider the applications so made by the petitioners for equivalency certificate as required in Ext.P2. While WP(c).No.32225/08 & anor. 3 considering the applications as above, the University will also take into account the case of the petitioners that certain other persons who had passed out from Annamalai University, along with the petitioners have already been given equivalency certificates. 5. Once orders are passed on the applications and if equivalency certificates are granted, it will be open to the petitioners to produce the same before the Registrar of the University within 2 weeks of its receipt. In such a case, the University will accept the certificates and treat the same as having been produced in compliance with Ext.P2 and within one week of its receipt, do the needful in pursuance to the offer of appointment made to the petitioners. Petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. Writ Petitions are disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC vi JUDGE WP(c).No.32225/08 & anor. 4