IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2010 / 25TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 29713 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR.M.V.VASANDAKUMAR, READER, DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY, SREE NARAYANA COLLEGE, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUGATHAN SMT.VARSHA BHASKAR SRI.S.PRASANTH (AYYAPPANKAVU) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, KERALA RAJ BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 099 2. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM - 673 635. 3. DR.KANNAN V.M., READER, DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM - 673 635. 4. K.V.LAZER, READER, DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM - 673 635. BY ADV. SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN, S.C. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.T. MAHAMOOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 29713 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 15th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner applied for the post of Reader in the Department of Zoology in the University of Calicut pursuant to Ext. P1 notification. After the interview, the 3rd respondent was selected in the ETB quota and the 4th respondent in OC quota. According to the petitioner, he was disqualified for the reason that he is over-aged. The petitioner filed W.P(C) No. 35486/2005 challenging the appointment of respondents 3 and 4. In the meanwhile, a sub committee appointed by the Syndicate submitted Ext. P3 report pointing out various irregularities in the selection. In view of that report, that writ petition was disposed of directing the University to take further action based on Ext. P3 report of the sub committee. Pursuant thereto, on the basis of a decision of the Syndicate approving the sub committee report, the Registrar passed orders cancelling the appointment and terminating the services of respondents 3 and 4. The petitioner now understands that the respondents 3 and 4 have filed a representation/appeal before the 1st respondent in which the 1st has granted a stay of termination of the service of respondents 3 and 4. Although the 1st respondent had posted the appeal on 24-10-2009, no orders were passed in the appeal. The petitioner now submits that the 1st respondent may be directed to dispose of the representation/appeal after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner also in respect of which the petitioner has filed Ext. P7 representation. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the University. In the nature of the order I propose to pass, I do not think it W.P.C. No. 29713/09 -: 2 :- necessary to issue notice to respondents 3 and 4 at this juncture. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to pass final orders in the representation/appeal filed by respondents 3 and 4 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as respondents 2, 3 and 4. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.