IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 35288 of 2004(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- DR.SHIBU SIMON, CHAKKANGULATH, KURAVIOLANGAD, KOTTAYAM DIST., NOW RESIDING AT MAPPILA PARAMBIL, MARTHA BHAVAN ROAD, EAST FORT, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, VELLANIKKARA P.O., THRISSUR-680 654. 2. VETERINARY COUNCIL OF INDIA (STATUTORY BODY OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA CONSTITUTED UNDER INDIAN VETERINARY COUNCIL ACT 1984), REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, WEA ARYASAMAJ ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 005. 3. THE DEAN, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY SCIENCE, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR. 4. THE ASSOCIATE DEAN, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY SCIENCE, POOKOT, WYNAD DIST. HAVING TEMP. HEAD QUARTERS AT MANNUTHY, THRISSUR-680 651. 5. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. STATE VETERINARY COUNCIL- KERALA, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, PEROORKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1, R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI. K.P. MUJEEB, S.C, R6 BY SRI.N.R.SURESH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.35288/2004-A: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 16/03/99 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN O.P. 657/99 AND CONNECTED CASES. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD. 24/05/00 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.2.A: COPY OF THE INFORMATION SHEET FORMING PART OF EXT.P.1. NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 20/06/00 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN RESPONSE TO EXT.P.2. NOTIFICATION. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE R.1. IN O.P. 31134/01 BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.5: TRUE EXTRACT OF THE REQUIRED TEACHING STAFF STRENGTH IN THE CONCERNED FACULTY OF R.1. UNIVERSITY AS PER THE VETERINARY COUNCIL OF INDIA NORMS. EXT.P.6: TRUE EXTRACT OF THE EXISTING STAFF STRENGTH IN THE ABOVE FACULTY. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 26/07/02 SENT BY THE VETERINARY COUNCIL OF INDIA TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT POINTING OUT THE INADEQUACY OF TEACHING STAFF STRENGTH AND THE PROPOSED STEPS TO CAUSE WITHDRAWAL OF BVSC AND AH QUALIFICATION GIVEN BY THE R.1. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD. 20/09/04 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.9: TRUE EXTRACT OF THE INTERVIEW MENO DTD. 20/11/04 ISSUED BY THE R.1. PURSUANT TO EXT.P.8 NOTIFICATION. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.35288 of 2004-A - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner approached this Court complaining about the delay in granting appointment pursuant to the selection process initiated as per Ext.P2. 2. The petitioner submitted the application pursuant to a notification dated 24.5.2000. The post in question was Assistant Professor. It is stated in the writ petition that the selection process, even though was undertaken, because of certain intervening events and due to the pendency of several writ petitions before this Court challenging the recruitment process, the same got delayed. In the meanwhile, the University issued another notification as per Ext.P8 and they proceeded with the appointment of persons in terms of the above selection process. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was granted an appointment and a true copy of the order has been produced for perusal by the learned Standing Counsel for the University. Evidently, therefore, the grievance raised by the petitioner in this writ petition has been met. wpc 35288/2004 2 4. What is projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner now is that after the selection process was initiated and before completion of the same, several persons have been appointed in similar posts, whereby the seniority of the petitioner has been affected. Evidently, the appointees are not made parties in this writ petition. Therefore, granting of any relief cannot be considered by this Court in this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore prayed that the petitioner may be allowed to move the University in this matter. The same is opposed by the learned Standing Counsel for the University by submitting that the petitioner's appointment was made only in 2008 and he can claim seniority only from that date. Since the said issue has not been raised in this writ petition, I am not finally pronouncing anything on the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding that aspect. Therefore, the said issue is left open and it is open to the petitioner to move the authorities, if so advised, and in that contingency, the matter will be considered in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/