IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 322 of 2010(S) ----------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.23091/2008 Dated 16/09/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): IST PETITIONER IN THE W.P: ------------------------- BABY JOSEPH, AGED 49, S/O.T.V.JOSEPH, ULUTHUVAYIL, AMALLOOSERI.P.O, KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS.MR.N.SUGATHAN SMT.VARSHA BHASKAR MR.S.PRASANTH (AYYAPPANKAVU) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT IN THE W.P: --------------------------- SRI.U.R.UNNI, REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS.P.O, KOTTAYAM-686 560. (RESPONDENT'S AGE AND FATHER'S NAME ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER). ADV. MR. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------------- Contempt Case(C) No.322 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the University. Alleging violation of Annexure II judgment, this Contempt of Court Case has been filed. 2. In Annexure II judgment, there was a direction to the respondent to take appropriate action to complete the selection process for appointment to the post of Light Duty Drivers expeditiously as assured by the respondent before this Court. 3. The contention raised by the petitioner herein is that in spite of lapse of so many months, no finality has been attained to the selection process and therefore, there is wilful disobeyance of the judgment passed by this Court which warrants action under the Contempt of Court Act. 4. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is pointed out that in compliance with the directions of this Court, Cont. Case (C) No.322/2010 2 the matter was placed before the statutory Selection Committee held on 30.10.2009. It was held that the valuation was not done properly and therefore, a centralized valuation camp has to be conducted at the earliest. The Selection Committee also recommended to appoint a team of examiners to value all the answer scripts in the federal valuation pattern. The meeting of the syndicate held on 24.12.2009 resolved to accept the recommendation of the statutory Selection Committee and to cancel both the valuations conducted. The syndicate further resolved to conduct a fresh valuation, at a centralized valuation camp, in the federated pattern to ensure transparency in the valuation. The centralized valuation camp was scheduled to be held on 27th and 28th of February 2010 and because of certain problems expressed by the examiners, the camp could not be conducted. It was assured that the process will be completed within three months. 5. In the light of the above, it can be seen that the University was taking various steps in the matter so as to complete the selection process. Now that the centralized Cont. Case (C) No.322/2010 3 valuation is proposed to be held and that there is an assurance that the selection process will be completed within three months, it can be seen that the allegation of non compliance with the directions issued cannot survive. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the University, this Court has not fixed any particular time limit in Annexure II judgment. In that view of the matter, recording the submission that the selection process will be completed within three months, this Contempt of Court Case is closed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that liberty may be reserved for the petitioner to file an application to revive this, in case there is any non-compliance. The petitioner will be free to file such an application, if permissible under law. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp