IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2008 / 6TH BHADRA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 1148 of 2008(S) ------------------------------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.27415/2006 Dated 13/12/2006 .................... PETITIONER: ----------------- DR.DINESHAN KOOVAKKAI, S/O.V.K.KUMARAN, AGED 43, NOW WORKING AS JUNIOR LIBRARIAN, CALICUT UNIVERSITY STUDY CENTRE, P.T.USHA ROAD, NEAR MAYOR BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE-32. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. RESPONDENT: -------------------- DR.T.K.NARAYANAN, (FATHER'S NAME & AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O, PIN-673 635. BY SHRI P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC,. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.C.(C).NO. 1148 OF 2008 S IN W.P.C. NO. 27415 OF 2006 L -------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th August, 2008 JUDGMENT Annexure A1 Order reads as follows: "Apprehension of the petitioner is that the University is taking steps to go in for recruitment and filling up the post treating it as open vacancy. It is submitted on behalf of the University on the basis of the oral instructions that the apprehension of the petitioner is not correct and that at present, there is no proposal to go in for such re-notification. Learned standing counsel submits that he will file a statement in this regard." 2. Contempt of the same is alleged on the basis of the issuance of Annexure Ext.A20. The stand taken by the respondent is that there is no contempt committed on the basis that the submission which was made at the time of passing the order was that as of today, there was no proposal to go in for such re-notification. Going by the terms of Annexure AI order, CC(C).NO.1148/08 S 2 the apprehension of the petitioner would appear to have been that the University was taking steps to go in for recruitment and treating it as open vacancy. The order further shows that the submission of the university was referred to, namely, there is no proposal to go in for such re-notification. Having regard to the terms of Annexure A20 which I note is issued in 2008 and which actually proposes to fill up the vacancy of Reader in Library and Information Science from among the ETB categories, and not open category, I do not think that the petitioner has made out a case for proceeding against the respondent under the Contempt of Court jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Contempt of Court Case is dropped. Further, I make it clear that this will be without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and also to proceed against Annexure A20, if so advised. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. //True Copy// PS to Judge