IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 4671 of 2011(H) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- AJI, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.APPU, CHARUVILAPUTHEN VEEDU, PALAPPOOR, VELLAYANI PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S): ---------------- ---------- 1. THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN 680 656. 2. THE REGISTRAR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN 680 656. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.4671 Of 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011 J U D G M E N T The grievance raised by the petitioner is that being a temporary employee under the University, for selection to the post of Casual Worker, the petitioner need not be subjected to screening test. 2. Exhibits P1 and P2 are the certificates relied upon by the petitioner to show that he is engaged as a Field Worker under the 1st respondent. According to him, he was not aware that the Field Workers are exempted from screening test. It is the submission of the petitioner that daily rated employees and contract workers are exempted from participating in the screening test and they need only participate in the interview. It appears that the petitioner appeared for all these and now having failed to get a favourable result in the screening test, he has approached this Court with this Writ Petition. 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the University submitted that the petitioner has not produced the certificates Exhibits P1 and P2, even though in Exhibit P5 memo also as item W.P.(C)No.4671/11 -2- 6 such persons were required to produce such details. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is only because of lack of communication in the matter, the petitioner did not produce the certificates before the authorities concerned. Accordingly, it is prayed that the respondents may be directed to consider the representation Exhibit P6. 5. I am not expressing anything on the merits of the matter. It is upto the respondents to take a decision on Exhibit P6 representation in accordance with law. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Registrar of the University to consider the representation Exhibit P6 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after notice to the petitioner. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/-(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) dsn True copy P.A.to Judge