IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2010 / 10TH JYAISTHA 1932 WA.No. 551 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN W.P.(C)26765/2005 & RP.1184/2009 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER IN WP ------------------------------ DR.P.GEETHA, LECTURER IN SENIOR SCALE SREENEELAKANDA GOVT.SANSKRIT COLLEGE, PATTAMBI. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WP -------------------------------- 1. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY POST, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY POST, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE SELECTION COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SELECTING CANDIDATES TO THE POST OF DIRECTOR OF WOMEN STUDIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (THE REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT CALICUT UNIVERSITY POST, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM. ADV. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.551 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 31st day of May, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Writ Appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to interfere in the selection process for the post of Director (Women Studies) to the Calicut University wherein appellant was an applicant, but was not considered for the post. Standing Counsel appearing for the University produced the records which show that the appellant had simultaneously applied for Reader's post and since she was overaged, she was not considered. However, there is nothing on record to show that she was considered for the post of Director (Women Studies), though a few others were considered and all of them were found unfit. Standing Counsel for the University submitted that probably the appellant also would have been considered and found ineligible. However, appellant's contention is that since she was overaged to be considered for the post of Reader, the same yardstick 2 was wrongly applied by the selection committee and she was not called for interview even for the post of Director which according to her, was not held separately. In any case we are told that on enquiry the selection was found to be not conducted in a proper manner and the whole selection process including the Reader's selection was recommended for cancellation by the Syndicate of the University. We feel all that could be granted to the appellant is an opportunity to participate in the next selection process for appointment to the post of Director (Women Studies). We, therefore, allow the Writ Appeal by modifying the judgment of the learned Single Judge and directing the University to permit the appellant to apply for the post of Director (Women Studies) along with other eligible candidates by relaxing age limit in appellant's case. The appellant shall be considered on merits along with other eligible candidates. Since the proposal was to fill up 3 the post of Director (Women Studies) years back, we do not find any justification for the University to delay it any further. It is for the University to take steps for appointment without any delay. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge P.S.GOPINATHAN Judge pms