IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2009 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1930 WA.No. 1283 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.14625/2006 .................... APPELLANTS/ NOT PARTIES TO W.P.: ------------------- 1. SAJI SRAMBIKKAL, KUNNUMMAL HOUSE, P.O.MUKKOM, NEAR M.H.S., KOZHIKODE. 2. JAYAN.P., 'HARISREE', KOLAKKATTUCHALI P.O., CHELEMBRA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUGATHAN SMT.K.P.AMBIKA SMT.ASHIRA MOHAMMED ASHROF SRI.K.K.ASHKAR RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS IN W.P.: --------------- 1. JAMSHEED.P.T., AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA, PANDARATHODI HOUSE, MAITHRA.P.O., AREAKODE VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 639. 2. ABDUL JALEEL.M.T., S/O.M.T.MOHAMMED, THADTHIL HOUSE, VENGARA P.O., - 676 304. 3. UNNIKRISHNAN.V.D., AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN V.D., VATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARUVAMBRAM WEST.P.O., MANJERI - 676 123. 4. K.SAJITH, KOORIKKAT HOUSE, AMARAMBALAM SOUTH .P.O., (VIA) VANIYAMBALAM - 679 339. WA.No. 1283 of 2007 5. GIRISH KUMAR M., S/O.LATE KUNHAN M., KUMBALATH HOUSE, P.O.MAVOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 661. 6. RAJEEV.U.V., AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.CHAKKAPPAN.U.V., UNIKANDAMVEETTIL, ANJAPURA, PARAPPANANGADI - 676 303. 7. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REP.BY ITS REGISTRAR, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 8. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM FOR R1 TO R6. SRI.E.S.ASHRAF, SC FOR R7 AND R8. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2009, ALONG WITH WA NO. 242 OF 2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. --------------------------------- W.A.Nos.1283 & 242 OF 2007 --------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. W.A.No.1283/2007: This appeal is filed by the persons affected by the judgment in W.P.(C) No.14625/2006. The said writ petition was filed by respondents 1 to 6 herein against respondents 7 and 8, seeking a direction to appoint them to the post of Electrical Workers in view of their ranking in Ext.P1 rank list. The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge and respondents 7 and 8 herein were directed to take appropriate steps to make appointments, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The candidates, who were not selected, have come up in appeal challenging the said direction. According to them, the selection was vitiated by various irregularities and therefore, such a direction should not have been issued by this Court. The respondents 1 to 6, who are the writ petitioners, would W.A.Nos.1283 & 242/2007 2 vehemently oppose the said submission and contend that Ext.P1 rank list has been prepared validly and therefore the learned Single Judge rightly issued the direction to make appointments from the list. 2. After the judgment of this Court on 19.7.2006, the Syndicate of the University on 13.12.2006 resolved to cancel the rank list and conduct a fresh selection. Based on that resolution, consequential proceedings have been issued by the University on 10.1.2007. True copies of the decision of the Syndicate and the consequential order passed on behalf of the Registrar of the University are part of the pleadings as Annexures D and E. They are filed along with the counter affidavit of the University in connected writ appeal No.1398/2008. 3. In view of the above mentioned subsequent developments, the question arose whether the direction of the learned Single Judge could be implemented now. We heard the learned counsel on both sides on this point. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners, who are respondents 1 to 6 herein, W.A.Nos.1283 & 242/2007 3 submitted that the present decision of the Syndicate is politically motivated and vitiated by malafidies. In view of the direction issued by this Court to implement Ext.P1, the University could not have taken a decision to cancel it. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellant and learned senior counsel for the University submitted that the learned Single Judge issued a direction in view of the existence of Ext.P1 rank list. Since Ext.P1 is no longer in force, the direction also will become unenforceable. 4. When this Court issued a direction for implementation of an order whether that direction of this Court can be got over by cancelling that order is a matter, which should be decided in appropriate proceedings, challenging the decision of the Syndicate of the University to cancel the rank list. It is a point on which two views are possible. Having regard to the facts of the case, we feel that the writ petitioners, who are respondents 1 to 6 herein, should challenge the decision of the University in appropriate, independent, proceedings. If they challenge it, within a reasonable time limit from today, the W.A.Nos.1283 & 242/2007 4 respondents shall not take up the plea that the said proceedings were challenged belatedly and even if raised, the same shall be ignored by the court or authority considering the challenge against that decision of the University. 5. In view of the subsequent developments, we feel that the University cannot be compelled to implement Ext.P1 rank list unless the said rank list is restored in appropriate proceedings by setting aside the decision of the University cancelling that. The writ appeal is disposed of with the above direction. W.A.No.242/2007 In view of the judgment in W.A.No.1283/2007, no further orders are required in this writ appeal. It is ordered that judgment under W.A.No.1283/2007 will govern this writ appeal also. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) ps