IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15406 of 2010(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- DR.SINDHU.T.I LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF HINDI, ST.PETERS COLLEGE, KOLENCHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM ,REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE MANAGER, ST.PETERS COLLEGE, KOLENCHERRY. 4. SMT. SINDHU P KAUMA, LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF HINDI, ST.PETERS COLLEGE,KOLENCHERRY. 5. SMT. BEENA PYLEE, LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF HINDI, ST.PETERS COLLEGE,KOLENCHERRY. 6. DR.GEETHA K.A, LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF HINDI, ST.PETERS COLLEGE,KOLENCHERRY. R1 & R2 BY SRI. T.A. SHAJI, S.C, M.G. UNIVERSITY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/05/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No. 15406 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is presently working as Lecturer in the Department of Hindi in St.Peters College, Kolencherry. Earlier, the 2nd respondent had considered the issue regarding the seniority and approval of appointment of lecturers in the Hindi Department of the College and passed Ext.P4. As per the same it was found that the petitioner was entitled to be appointed in preference to respondents 4 to 6. Respondents 4 to 6 challenged Ext.P4 before this Court in WP(C) No. 12158/2004, but the above finding was not interfered with. Hence, it has become final and consequently, he is entitled to get seniority over respondents 4 to 6. Since the 3rd respondent did not take any action to prepare and publish a seniority list implementing Ext.P4 the petitioner has preferred Ext.P5 representation before the 3rd respondent. Despite the receipt of Ext.P5 representation no action has been taken by the 3rd respondent. It is with these averments that this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 2. As noticed hereinbefore, the issue relating seniority and approval of appointment of lecturers in the Hindi WPC.15406/2010 : 2 : Department of St.Peters College, Kolencherry was settled by the 2nd respondent, as per direction of this court in O.P.No. 21268/2002, after hearing all the parties including respondents 3 to 6 and the petitioner, as per Ext.P4. Ext.P4 has become final according to the petitioner and he is aggrieved only by the inaction on the part of the 3rd respondent to take further steps including preparation and publication of a seniority list in terms of Ext.P4. Ext.P5 filed with the said request is pending before the 3rd respondent. In the said circumstances, I am of the view that the 3rd respondent is bound to consider Ext.P5 representation on merits after hearing the petitioner and the others who are likely to be affected in case of a decision in favour of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 representation in accordance with law, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the petitioner and respondents 4 to 6. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge