IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2008 / 17TH SRAVANA 1930 WA.No.1659 of 2008 ( ) ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.21504/2008 Dated 05/08/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PEPTITIONER -------------------------------- SUHAIL P.M., AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL MAJEED P.M. LASHEERIMATTIL HOUSE, NEEROLPALAM, THENHIPPALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673 636. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM SMT.K.P.AMBIKA SRI.THOMSTINE K.AUGUSTINE SRI.C.N.GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------ 1. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE SYNDICATE, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., THENHIPALAM MALAPPURAM. 4. PARAMESWARN C.P. AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. CHATHAN KUTTY, POOTHERIVALAPPIL HOUSE, CHERLARI P.O., VELIMUKKU, MALAPPURAM. WA.No.1659 of 2008 -2- 5. CLR WORKERS ASSOCIATION, CALICUT UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SHRI.N.P. MURALEEDHARAN, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., THENJIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN S.C. SRI.K.S. MADHUSOODANAN FOR R4 SRI.SANTHOSH G. PRABHU FOR R5 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. B. KOSHY & K. P. BALACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. A. No.1659 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT J. B. Koshy, J The appellant/petitioner approached the learned Single Judge for staying the selection process. Even though, conditional stay was granted, learned Single Judge allowed the written examination to be conducted as per schedule. Then a writ appeal was filed. In the writ appeal, this Court held that written examination can be conducted but merely by writing the examination they will not get any additional benefits/rights in view of the pendency of the writ petition. Again the petitioner moved for staying the written examination and that was also dismissed. We see no ground in filing repeated petitions before the learned Single Judge. It is for the W. A. No.1659 of 2008 -2- petitioner to move the learned Single Judge for the disposal of the writ petition. Meanwhile, examination shall be conducted as fixed in accordance with law. Appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. J. B. KOSHY JUDGE K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-