IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 4999 of 2003(T) ---------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ THANKAMANI K.N., W/O. K.SOMAN, AGED 43 YEARS, "VYSAKHAM", MADATHIPARAMBIL, CHITTOOR ROAD, COCHIN -18 BY ADV. SMT.M.C.BINDUMOL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN -22 2. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATUION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANDESH RAJA SRI.SUNIL CYRIAC- SC, COCHIN UTY. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDEDR ON CMP.NO.8899/2003 & I.A.NO.8028/2004 IN OP.NO.4999/2003 DISMISSED 8.2.2008. SD/= P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 COPY OF THE ADMISSION CARD DTD 8.9.1999. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE RANK LIST OF CANDIDATES VIDE NOTIFICATION NO.RECTT.SN/TYPIST-STENO/99 DTD 18.4.2000. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(A) COPY OF THE LETTER NO.8254/B2/2004/H.EDN DTD 20.3.04. /TRUE COPY/ cl P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------------------------------------------- O.P.NO.4999 OF 2003-T -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT The prayers in this original petition are as follows: i. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing appointments made to the post of Typist/Stenographer and to different posts under Class III category under first respondent University in violation of the reservation rules; ii issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ commanding the respondents that by applying communal rotation postwise, ie. to treat posts of Typist/Stenographer of all the departments of the first respondent University as a single unit fill up the vacancies. iii. to declare that the petitioner is entitled for appointment as LD Typist/Stenographer in the vacancy arose prior to the expiry of the validity of the Ext.P2 rank list; iv. to declare that vacancy to the post of Typist/Stenographer filled up by applying the communal rotation to Class-III post as a whole including different posts and pursuant to the rank lists prepared at different times preceded by tests or interview conducted at different times is violative of the General Reservation Rules and the Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986; v. to declare that when the ban imposed by the Government filling up of all the posts are adopted and applied in the first respondent University and on extending the validity of rank list published by the Public service Commission, the first OP.NO.4999/03 . 2 respondent is correspondingly bound to extend the validity of Ext.P2 rank list also; vi. to declare that non extension of the validity of Ext.P2 rank list is vitiated by colour of politics, unreasonable and violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Articles 4 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India and against the legitimate expectation in the matter.” 2. The petitioner is a candidate included in Ext.P2 rank list. Her grievance is that the University is not willing to extend the validity of the list notwithstanding the ban on appointments imposed by the State Government. Yet another grievance is that rules of communal reservation have not been applied by treating all the departments of the University as a single unit. Exhibit P2 list came into force on 18.4.2000 and it was valid for a period of two years. The validity of the list expired long before this original petition was filed. Further, if the reliefs sought for by the petitioner are granted, it will adversely affect those who have already been appointed from Ext.P2 list. No one of the selected candidates named in Ext.P2 list are in the party array. 3. In the absence of affected persons in the party array , I am OP.NO.4999/03 . 3 of the view that no reliefs can be granted to the petitioner. At this stage, without proper and necessary parties on the party array if a direction as prayed for by the petitioner is issued it will result in gross injustice to them. Further, it is brought to my notice that O.P.No.18828 of 2002 challenging the very same list was dismissed by this court. The original petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. No costs. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl OP.NO.4999/03 . 4 P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. O.P.NO.4999 OF 2003-T JUDGMENT 8th February, 2008.