IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2009 / 26TH ASHADHA 1931 WA.No. 1325 of 2009 -------------- --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.28188/2001 Dated 21/05/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S)//6TH RESPONDENT A.MUHAMMED BASHEER, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.ALIKUNJU, L.D.CLERK, MANNANIYA COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 5 1. UMMAR.M., LIBRARY ASSISTANT, MANNANIYA COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCE, PANGODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION (D) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. MANAGER, MANNANIYA COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCE, PANGODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. PRINCIPAL, MANNANIYA COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCE, PANGODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. AHMED FAZIL, L.D.CLERK, MANNANIYA COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCE, PANGODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI. ELVIN PETER. R2 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU R4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI. S.P.ARAVINDAKSHA PILLAY R6 BY ADV. SRI. V.A. MUHAMMED THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2009, ALONG WITH WA NO. 1328 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A.Nos.1325 and 1328 of 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 17th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. W.A.No.1325/09: This appeal is filed by the 6th respondent in the writ petition. The first respondent herein is the writ petitioner. The connected appeal, W.A.No.1328/09 is filed by respondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition. 2. The petitioner approached this court challenging Ext.P6 order of the Government dated 15.9.2001. As per that order, the appointment of the appellant herein in the post of Library Assistant was ordered to be regularised in relaxation of the relevant statute governing qualification. The first respondent - writ petitioner was appointed as peon in the third respondent's college on 7.8.1995. He was later promoted as Library Assistant on 6.8.1996. Two vacancies arose in the cadre on L.D.C. on 3.6.1996 and 5.8.1996. The first respondent claimed one of those vacancies. His claim was upheld by the WA.Nos.1325 & 1328/09 - 2 - Director of Collegiate Education as per Ext.P4. The approval of the appointment of the appellant as Library Assistant was rejected by the Director of Collegiate Education by Ext.P3. Challenging Ext.P3, the appellant moved the Government. Aggrieved by non-implementation of Ext.P4, the first respondent moved the Director of Collegiate Education. Since the matter was already pending before the Government, the Director referred the first respondent also to the Government. The Government after hearing both sides, passed the impugned order as per which the appellant's appointment as Library Assistant was approved in relaxation of the statute. The result is that for appointment to the post of L.D.C., the appellant got a superior claim when compared to the first respondent/writ petitioner. Therefore, the first respondent challenged Ext.P6 in the writ petition. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the approval of the appointment ordered under Ext.P6. Further, peremptory directions were issued to appoint the first respondent/writ petitioner and also to approve his appointment. Feeling aggrieved by the above judgment, the appellant has preferred WA.Nos.1325 & 1328/09 - 3 - this writ appeal. As mentioned earlier, the connected Writ Appeal is filed by the Manager and Principal of the College. 3. We heard learned counsel on both sides. Learned counsel for the first respondent/writ petitioner fairly submitted that he will be satisfied if the appellant does not stake any claim to the post of L.D.C. in preference to him and if the directions in favour of the said respondent is sustained, he will not be interested in unsettling the appointment of the appellant in the post of Library Assistant. Learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the Manager agreed that they have no objection in the first respondent/writ petitioner being promoted to the post of L.D.C. as directed by the learned Single Judge in preference to the appellant. We also heard the learned Government Pleader on the above point. 4. Having regard to the above submissions, by consent of parties, the writ appeal is disposed of restoring the approval of the appointment of the appellant as Library Assistant as ordered under Ext.P6, subject to the condition that the WA.Nos.1325 & 1328/09 - 4 - appellant and the Manager will not dispute the superior claim of the first respondent for appointment as L.D.C. The direction in favour of the first respondent shall be implemented promptly by the Director of Collegiate Education. It is clarified that as directions in this judgment are issued by consent of parties, this will not affect the contentions of the appellant in W.A. No.1545/09, who was the 5th respondent in the writ petition. In other words, his claim to the post of L.D.C. in preference to the first respondent will not be affected by this judgment. W.A. No.1328/2009: In view of the judgment in W.A.No.1325/09, no further orders are required in this appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal is closed. Sd/- K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. Sd/- C.T. Ravikumar, Judge. DK. (True copy)