IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2009 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9529 of 2009(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- DR.BINO THOMAS, READER, POST GRADUATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, B.A.M.COLLEGE, THURITHIKKADU, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686 560. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686 560. ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P(C) No. 9529 of 2009-I ------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of April, 2009. J U D G M E N T Heard Sri.N.Nandakumara Menon, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Sri.T.A.Shaji, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Mahatma Gandhi University. 2. By Ext.P1 notification dated 11.9.2006, the Mahatma Gandhi University invited applications from eligible candidates for appointment to various teaching posts including the post of Reader in Human Resource Management/Organizational Behaviour in the School of Management and Business Studies. The petitioner applied pursuant to Ext.P1. According to the petitioner he is eligible and qualified to be selected and appointed as Reader in Human Resources Management/Organizational Behaviour. The petitioner submits that without completing the selection process initiated as per Ext.P1, the University has re-notified the post by Ext.P9 notification dated 4.3.2009. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P9 notification and seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the University to proceed with and W.P(C) No. 9529 of 2009-I 2 complete the selection process initiated as per Ext.P1. 3. Sri.T.A.Shaji, the learned standing counsel appearing for the University submitted that pursuant to Ext.P1 notification, 12 candidates including the petitioner applied for appointment as Reader in Human Resource Management/Organizational Behaviour, that a screening committee was constituted to screen the applications, that the screening committee after scrutiny recommended to re-notify the post for the reason that none of the candidates were qualified to be appointed as Reader in Human Resource Management/Organizational Behaviour and that the University therefore decided to renotify the post. The learned Standing Counsel also submitted that this Court had by judgment delivered on 19.12.2007 in W.P.(C) No. 14797 of 2007 directed the University to fill up the vacancies in various teaching posts and therefore Ext.P9 notification was issued on 28.2.2009 renotifying the post of Reader in Human Resource Management/Organizational Behaviour. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. Ext.P1 notification was issued on 11.9.2006. Pursuant to the said notification, 12 persons W.P(C) No. 9529 of 2009-I 3 including the petitioner applied for the post of Reader in Human Resource Management/Organizational Behaviour. Thereafter, a screening committee consisting of the Vice Chancellor, a member of the syndicate nominated by the Vice Chancellor and the head of the department scrutinized the applications. On such scrutiny, the screening committee found that none of the candidates possessed the qualifications prescribed for the post and therefore recommended re-notification of the post. Statute 7(1)(b) of Chapter III of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes 1997 permits such screening. Therefore it cannot be said that the University was not right in cancelling Ext.P1 notification and in re-notifying the post. The petitioner cannot therefore insist that the University should proceed with the selection process initiated as per Ext.P1. The petitioner who was not found eligible to apply, cannot in my opinion challenge Ext.P9 notification or the decision taken by the University to renotify the post. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE //True Copy// ab PA to Judge W.P(C) No. 9529 of 2009-I 4 ab