IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 598 of 2010(Y) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SASIKALA.V.M., VENGALIL HOUSE, PUTHUPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM-686011, PHONE-2334125. 2. SHEENA.M.PAUL, MATTATHIL HOUSE, VADAVUCODE P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 310, PHONE-9847569223,3103282. 3. REENA CHACKO, VATHAKODAM HOUSE, VILLOONNI P.O., ARPOOKARA, KOTTAYAM-686 008, TEL.9846789711/0481-2399428. 4. MAYA.P.M., PALAKKATTUMADATHIL HOUSE, THALACODE P.O., MULANTHURUTHY VIA. PIN-682314. PHONE-9287559216,9893309203. 5. RANJITHA KUMARI.A.D., W/O.UTHAMAN, ARAKKAPARAMBIL, PANAMBUKAD, VALLARPADAM P.O., PHONE-3264943, MOBILE:9747901536, AGED 43 YEARS. 6. ZEEMA.S.S., D/O.SADANANDAN M.K., MARATTIKKAL PARAMBU, PACHALAM P.O., KOCHI-682 012, PHONE-9495576373. 7. P.G.SUJAYA, KATTANGANEZHATH, NAMBIAPURAM ROAD, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6, D/O.GANGADHARAN, AGED 46, PHONE-9249149935. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN SMT.NITA.N.S. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. WPC.598/10. 2 2. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/06/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO.664 OF 2010 AND WPC NO.7495 OF 2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC.598/10 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION APPEARED IN 1995 IN THE JOURNAL 'THOZHIL RANGAM'. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST WAS PUBLISHED BY THE M.G.UNIVERSITY ON DECEMBER 24TH, 2009. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF APPOINTMENTS ONDAILY WAGES. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF APPOINTMENTS ON DAILY WAGES. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF APPOINTMENTS ON DAILY WAGES. EXT.P6:TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF APPOINTMENTS ON DAILY WAGES. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.AD.A1-3-281/98 DATED 18.8.1999 OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (ADMN.) EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD.A1-3-47/2003(1) DATED 1.9.2003 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 24.4.1997 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. /TRUE COPY/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).Nos.598, 664 & 7495 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT These writ petitions are filed by a bunch of unfortunate persons who applied for being considered for selection for appointment as L.D. Typists in the Mahatma Gandhi University in the year 1995. They underwent the process of selection which strangely stood spread out for a span of nearly 15 years. The written test was conducted in 1996 and skilled test, in 2009. The University attributes this enormous delay to the intervening Government ban on making appointments in the wake of the bifurcation of the P.D.C. course in the regular college stream and the difficulties created thereby in the administration of the University and the colleges under it. By 2009, when the selection was completed and list published, the wisdom shown by the University is that they have attempted to reduce the life and currency of the select list. In fact, they proceeded to issue a fresh notification for a fresh round of selection. The petitioners WPC.598/10 & con. cases 2 are termed 'unfortunate' in the opening part of this judgment because these 15 years have run against them making them older and away from the field of choice for public employment, while, with the passage of time, the typewriters and typists might have become slowly outdated even in the University scenario as pointed out by its learned counsel. The University has to necessarily find out ways and means to provide some sort of relief for people who appeared for the skill test in 2009 and are found eligible and included in the select list. This could be done by making appointments from the select list which, as of now, is current as against vacancies that have arisen during the currency of the list which could include the last 15 years during which time the selection process was going on, till the list was published. This is a matter on which the University has to find methods on balancing the scales between the irreversible injustice that would result to the persons in the select list as against the opportunity that could come to those now available in the open market within the field of choice. It is noteworthy to WPC.598/10 & con. cases 3 mention in this context that the notification issued in 1995 did not mention the number of vacancies and that the currency of the list, going by the statutory rules applicable to the University, is two years. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Syndicate of the University will consider the aforesaid situation and take a pragmatic decision. Let this be done at the earliest. Learned counsel for the University will ensure that the matter gains the attention of the Syndicate through the Registrar or the Vice Chancellor within a period of two months from now. All issues on merits are left open. The writ petitions are ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.15/06.