IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 30886 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- PADMINI P.V.,LD TYPIST (TEMPORARY) RIMSR, MG UN IVERSITY, RUBBER BOARD P.O., THALAPPADY, PUTHUPALLY, RESIDING AT PULICKATHADATHIL, THELLAKOM P.O. KOTTAYAM - 16. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SRI.V.K.SATHYANATHAN SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, GANDHINAGAR, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 3. REGIONAL INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH PUTHUPALLY, (SELF FINANCING COLLEGE UNDER THE MG UNIVERSITY) REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 4. SHEENA T.A, BEENA COTTAGE, T.C.27/1639 VANCHIYOOR P.O., PATTOOR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695035. BY SC ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED FOR R1 SRI.M.SAJJAD FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.30886 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 30th November,2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner herein is working as L.D Typist on daily wage basis in the office of the 3rd respondent. She joined service as L.D Typist (temporary) in the office of the 2nd respondent on 27.9.1997. 2. A notification was published in the year 1996 for appointment to the post of L.D typist. A short list has been published including 147 candidates. Petitioner is seeking to quash Ext.P4 short list in the writ petition. 3. Mainly it is contended that most of the candidates included in the list are ineligible and many of them did not possess the requisite qualifications. Some of them have not even appeared for the written examination. Thus the contention appears to be that ineligible candidates have been allowed to participate in the written test and have been finally included in the short list. In Ground E it is stated that the 1st respondent even included those candidates who have not applied in response to the notification apart from the absentees of examination. W.P ( C) No.30886 of 2009 2 4. In the light of the above, one of the main prayers sought for in the writ petition is to quash Ext.P4 shortlist prepared based on the original notification of the year 1996. 5. First respondent has filed a counter affidavit in the matter. It is explained in paragraph 4 that only eligible candidates are included in the shortlist. No unqualified candidates or persons who have not appeared for the written test have been included in the shortlist. It is also pointed out that the procedure followed is strictly in terms of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statute 1997. Paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit shows that petitioner had appeared for the written test with Registration No.1368 and could not qualify for the skill test. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the entire selection process has to be declared as vitiated as there is long delay in conducting the tests. 7. A reading of the averments in the writ petition and the grounds contained therein show that only vague allegations have been made by the petitioner. The contentions are so generalised that this Court cannot act upon the same for granting any relief. Even though the petitioner alleges want of qualification on the part of many of the candidates no W.P ( C) No.30886 of 2009 3 specific averment has been made in respect of any of the candidates included among the 147 candidates in Ext.P4. Even though it is alleged that many of the candidates have not appeared for the written examination the details are not forthcoming even in the writ petition or in the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner. 8. Even though the petitioner has filed an I.A seeking for a direction to call for further materials, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot conduct a probe into the matter without any factual foundation in the writ petition. It was up to the petitioner to allege specifically the details regarding want of qualification and other deficiencies on the part of any of the candidates who have been shortlisted in Ext.P4. The appointment is yet to be made Therefore, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. This will be without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move any other authorities, if so advised. Not Costs. T.R RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE ma W.P ( C) No.30886 of 2009 4 W.P ( C) No.30886 of 2009 5