IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1932 RP.No. 945 of 2010() ------------------------------------------- IN JUDGMENT IN WPC 27702/2006 DATED 30/06/2009 -------------------- REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER IN WP(C) ----------------------------------------- MILTON P.FERNADEZ, MILTON VILLA, MUNDAKKAL WEST, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C) ------------------------------------- 1. THE SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, REP.BY ITS REGISTRAR, MAIN CAMPUS, KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, SREE ANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, MAIN CAMPUS, KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. SHRI P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN, SC FOR UNIVERSITY THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ R.P.No.945/2010 in W.P.(C). No.27702/2006-W ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 18th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T This review petition is filed by the writ petitioner pointing out that in the University, even though only one post of Binder was notified, in another vacancy of Binder one Smt.Valsala was appointed on daily wage basis and the said temporary appointment is continuing even after publication of the ranked list and, therefore, the basis on which the Judgment is rendered is liable to be reviewed. A reading of Annexure-I Judgment will show that this Court was of the view that the notification published only governed one vacancy and there was no indication to show that the ranked list prepared pursuant to the selection process will be in force so as to fill up vacancies which may arise during the currency of the ranked list also. It is also mentioned in paragraph (4) of the Judgment that during the live period of the ranked list, no vacancy has arisen for enabling them to make appointment of the second rank holder. In support of the plea, the petitioner has produced Annexure-II, a reply given under the Right to Information Act. As rightly pointed out by the learned R.P. No.945/2010 -:2:- counsel for the University, even going by the answer to question No.1, the sanctioned strength of the post of Binder is only one. Also going by answer to question No.3 it will show that one Smt.Valsa A.K was provisionally engaged for some period and there is no allegation that she is even now continuing. 2. Evidently, this Court adjudicated the right of the petitioner, the second rank holder, for appointment in a further vacancy as the first rank holder was already appointed. The vacancy notified is only one. It is in that circumstance, it was held that this Court cannot direct the petitioner to be appointed. 3. There is no apparent error in the Judgment. Even the circumstances pointed out by the petitioner herein are not sufficient to direct the appointment of the petitioner. Therefore, the review petition is not liable to be entertained and the same is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms