IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2008 / 8TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22945 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.SATHEESH, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.SHANMUKHAN, THUSHARAM, THAMPI ROAD, P.O. BEYPORE NORTH, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.RANJIT BABU RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O. 673 635. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR CALICUT UNIVERSITY, P.O.CALICUT UNIVERSITY - 673 635. BY ADV.SRI.P.C. SASIDHARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.22945 OF 2008-F ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T Heard. 2. Adv.Sri.P.C. Sasidharan appears for the respondents. 3. The petitioner applied for recruitment to the post of Typist in 1992. It is averred in the writ petition that there were certain protests and litigations regarding his selection. At a later point of time, when fresh notifications were issued, those who applied in 1992 were also permitted to compete by treating those applications as valid. The applicants like the petitioner were given the benefit of not paying any admission fee and age relaxation up to 50 years. That would also mean that, if unfortunately any of them would have become age bar, they will still be entitled to compete. 4. The plea fundamental in this writ petition is that if the 1992 candidates are forced to compete with candidates who have come at a later point of time, they would not have sufficient speed and other attendant qualities required for a WPC.NO.22945/2008 . 2 typist at par with those who are much young and who may be freshers. I am afraid that such a contention cannot be accepted to direct the University to make a separate selection. Firstly, the University is expected to run the institution at its best and secondly, but importantly, because it is a matter of public employment. Thirdly, the mere fact that 1992 candidates are also permitted to compete does not entitle them to have any preferential treatment. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl WPC.NO.22945/2008 . 3