IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2009 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 6167 of 2009(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR.R.K.SUNIL KUMAR, RAYAROTH THAZHE KUNIYIL, MADAPPALLY COLLEGE P.O., VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.NAVEEN.T RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KANNUR UNIVERSITY, MANGATTUPARAMBA, KANNUR - 670 567, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. SMT.NAVEENA, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE, CO-OPERATIVE ACADEMY OF PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION, CHEEMENEY, KANNUR. 3. THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF LECTURER IN THE DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, KANNUR UNIVERSITY, KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR. ADV. SRI.M.SASEENDRAN,SC,KANNUR UNIVERSITY FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C).No.6167 of 2009 - M ----------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was an applicant for appointment to the post of Lecturer in the Department of Information Science and Technology in the Kannur University. An interview was held on 19.2.2009 in which the petitioner also participated. This writ petition thereafter filed on 25.2.2009 contending that the second respondent is not qualified and that the University is taking steps to hastily appoint her overlooking the petitioner's superior claims. The learned standing counsel appearing for the University submits that the select list prepared by the selection committee has been placed before the Syndicate for approval and that the order of appointment of the selected candidate will be issued only after the select list is approved by the Syndicate. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in these circumstances, the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition reserving liberty with him to file a fresh writ petition challenging the appointment made by the University, if he is aggrieved thereby. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that W.P.(C).No.6167 of 2009 - M 2 the petitioner's contentions may be kept open. Having regard to the fact that the University is yet to appoint the second respondent as Lecturer, it has to be held that this writ petition is premature. Accordingly, without prejudice to the petitioner's contentions and his right to file a fresh writ petition, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-