IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2008 / 2ND ASHADHA 1930 WA.No. 1192 of 2008(E) -------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.4999/2003 Dated 08/02/2008 .................... APPELLANT:PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ THANKAMANI K.N., AGED 45 YEARS, W/O K. SOMAN, VYSAKHAM, MADATHIPARAMBIL, CHITTOOR ROAD, COCHIN -18. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENTS:RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCICENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN -22. 2. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, T THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN. R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------------------ W.A.No.1192 of 2008-E ------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 23rd day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT A.K.Basheer, J. Appellant is the petitioner in the original petition. She had approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution primarily with a prayer “to issue a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ order or direction to quash appointments made to the post of Typist/Stenographer to different posts under Class III category under first respondent University in violation of the reservation rules.” The other prayer was to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to apply communal rotation post wise, that is, “ to treat posts of Typist/Stenographer of all the departments of the first respondent university as a single unit.” The further prayer was for a declaration that she was entitled to be appointed as L.D.Typist/Stenographer in the vacancy that arose prior to the expiry of Ext.P2 ranked list. 2. The appellant had applied for the post of L.D.Typist/Stenographer in the University in response to a Notification issued in this regard on 3rd June, 1996. The rank list was admittedly published on 18th April, 2000, a copy of which is on record as Ext.P2. It was contended by the petitioner that the University ought to have WA.No.1192/2008 -2- followed the communal rotation category wise, treating all departments as one unit. For instance, she contended that post of L.D.Typist/Stenographer in all the departments should be treated as one unit for the purpose of applying reservation rules. 3. The above contentions raised by the appellant/petitioner were stoutly resisted by the University in its counter affidavit. 4. Learned Single Judge noticed that the first prayer made by the appellant was wholly untenable inasmuch as she had not impleaded any of the candidates who had already been appointed as Typist/Stenographer under Class III category in various departments in the University. Undoubtedly the prayer made by the petitioner could not have been granted for the reason that it was not supported by any data and also since it was totally vague. It was further noticed by the learned Judge that the ranked list had expired even before the appellant had approached the Court. The Original Petition was filed in February 2003 whereas the validity of the ranked list had expired on April 17, 2002. 5. Admittedly the appellant was placed at rank No.57. In its counter affidavit the University had asserted that 41 candidates from the ranked list had been appointed in conformity with the rules of rotation and communal reservation as envisaged in Section 7 (2) of the Cochin University of Science and Technology Act. While doing so, the WA.No.1192/2008 -3- University had strictly adhered to classification of posts as stipulated in the First Statutes 1981. 6. The other contention raised by the appellant in the Original Petition was that the University was bound to extend the validity of Ext.P2 ranked list in view of the ban imposed by the Government in the matter of appointment. The said contention was also repelled by the learned Judge, rightly in our view. Appellant had not produced any material to substantiate the contentions raised by her in the Original Petition. More importantly, she had no case that she had been denied appointment even though her turn had arisen in terms of the rank position in Ext.P2 list. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the materials on record, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. There is no merit in the writ appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS