IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 WA.No. 1331 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.20622/2002 Dated 11/02/2009 .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER ---------------------------------------- PHILIP M.PHILIP, JUNIOR SYSTEMS ANALYST MODEL TECHNICAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KAPARASSERY, NEDUMBASSERY P.O., ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------- 1. INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PRAJOE TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. REGHUKUMAR.P., LECTURER IN COMPUTER APPLICATIONS, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, ADOOR. ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.S.SUJIN FOR R1 SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH FOR R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. --------------------------- W.A. No. 1331 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant is the original petitioner. He was an employee working under the first respondent. The said respondent by Ext.P2 notification invited applications for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Computer Application along with two other posts. As per Ext.P2, the last date for receipt of applications was 31.7.2001 and the candidates should be qualified at least by 30.6.2001 to apply for the post. The appellant submitted application for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Computer Application. Later, Ext.P4 notification was issued, as per which, the last date for receipt of applications was extended up to 15.9.2001 and the last date for acquiring qualification was extended up to 31.8.2001. Still later by Ext.P5, the qualifications for recruitment to some other posts, notified as per Ext.P2, were modified and for all posts the last date for receipt of applications was fixed as 7.12.2001 and the last date for acquisition of qualification was notified as 30.11.2001. Going by Ext.P5, there W.A No. 1331/09 2 was no change in the qualifications prescribed for the post of Lecturer in Computer Application. As per Ext.P5 , Exts.P2 and P4 were cancelled and those persons who applied pursuant to those notifications were to apply again, if they were interested. 2. Thereafter, the selection to the post of Lecturer (Computer Application) was conducted, in which, the appellant also participated. Finding that there were additional candidates in the field, he filed Ext.P7 representation dated 22.1.2002 requesting that for the post of Lecturer in Computer Application, the selection may be made based on the applications of the candidates, who submitted their applications pursuant to Ext.P4. But to his surprise, he found that by Ext.P6 the second respondent and another were appointed to the post. The appellant submitted that the second respondent acquired MCA qualification only on 19.11.2001. The exercise of extension of time was undertaken under Ext.P5 only to help him. Therefore, feeling aggrieved by Ext.P6, the original petition was filed by the appellant. Apart from Ext.P6, he also challenged Ext.P5 and other consequential reliefs were also sought. The learned Single Judge after hearing both sides took the view that since the appellant W.A No. 1331/09 3 participated in the selection process, he cannot turn around and complain about Ext.P5. In that view of the matter, the original petition was dismissed. Challenging the said judgment, this writ appeal is filed. 3. We heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides. We notice from the materials on record that, according to the first respondent, the extension of time was granted on the request of the employees and their associations as a few persons who wrote the final examinations were awaiting the publication of the results. In many of the Universities in Kerala there will be delay in publication of the results and therefore to enable all the employees who have taken the final examinations also to apply, the time limit for submission of applications and acquisition of qualifications was extended. We think such an exercise undertaken by the first respondent based on the representation of its employees and their associations cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational. There is no Act or Rule or any order which says that once the notification is issued inviting applications, the last date for receipt of the application cannot be changed. For valid reasons, the administrative authority concerned can definitely W.A No. 1331/09 4 change the date of receipt of applications and also the last date for acquisition of qualifications. The appellant has no vested right to say that the same should not be done. We find that what was undertaken was a bonafide exercise of power to help the employees who were awaiting the results of their examination. So though the petitioner may be correct in saying that he found out the alleged illegality in the selection only by participating in it and therefore he could not have challenged it earlier, still, we are of the view that on merits the appellant does not have a case. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, (JUDGE ) P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps W.A No. 1331/09 5