IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2010 / 25TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20109 of 2010(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- JOSE T.V., SECURITY GUARD, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.N.SUGATHAN, SMT.VARSHA BHASKAR, SRI.S.PRASANTH (AYYAPPANKAVU). RESPONDENT: ---------------------- SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR, KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 574. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN,S.C,SANKARACHA.UTY., THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2010, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 26398 OF 2005, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) Nos.26398 of 2005 (P) & 20109 of 2010 (K) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 16th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The controversy in these writ petitions is regarding appointment to the post of Security Officer under the respondent University. 2. As per the Statutes framed the qualification prescribed for appointment is Ex-servicemen not below the rank of Captain. It would appear that prior to 2005, the University had issued repeated notifications inviting applications. However, for want of candidates, they could not make appointment, as a result of which the Syndicate passed resolution dated 23/05/2005 (Ext.P6 in WP(C) No.20109/2010) relaxing the qualification as “Ex-servicemen not below the rank of a Junior Commissioned Officer or equivalent with five years experience as Security Officer”. On that basis, the University issued notification dated 19/08/2005 inviting applications (Ext.P7 in WP(C) No.20109/2010). 3. At that stage, WP(C) No.26398/2005 was filed WP(C) Nos.26398/2005 & 20109/2010 -2- challenging the notification and the resolution relaxing the qualification, and alleging that such relaxation was made to help the petitioner in WP(C) No.20109/2010. Initially, an interim order of stay was passed by this Court. However, that was subsequently modified by order dated 28/06/2007, enabling the University to proceed with the selection, but however directing that appointment shall not be made without obtaining orders from this Court. The University did not pursue the matter further. 4. Now notification dated 27/05/2010 has been issued (Ext.P10 in WP(C) No.20109/2010) inviting applications for appointment to the post of Security Officer. In this notification the qualification prescribed is 'Ex-servicemen not below the rank of Captain', which is the qualification prescribed in the Statute. It is challenging Ext.P10 notification and contending that the University should proceed further with the notification dated 19/08/2005 that WP(C) No.20109/2010 is filed. 5. In WP(C) No.20109/2010, the University has filed a statement explaining the reasons, which led to issue notification dated 27/05/2010 prescribing qualification mentioned therein. 6. Irrespective of the controversy now raised, it is disclosed WP(C) Nos.26398/2005 & 20109/2010 -3- from the statement filed on behalf of the University that the Syndicate has passed resolution dated 26/05/2010 revoking the resolution dated 23/05/2005 (Ext.P6 in WP(C) No.20109/2010) relaxing the qualification and also cancelling notification dated 19/08/2005 . It is stated that by this resolution, it was decided to issue fresh notification inviting applications specifying the qualification as prescribed in the Statute. Learned Standing Counsel for the University made available a copy of the resolution, which reads as under:- “ Item No.1 Appointment to the post of Security Officer - Reg. The Syndicate considered the legal opinion of the Standing Counsel. After detailed discussion the Syndicate resolved: 1. To revoke decision on item No.9 of the 55th meeting of the Syndicate dated 23/05/2005, reducing the qualification prescribed in the Statutes for the post of Security Officer and to cancel the decision on the item No.36 of the 57th meeting dated 16/08/2005 making relaxation in the qualification, as the same had been made without amending Statutes. 2. To annul the notification dated 19/08/2005, since it was not in accordance with the Statutes; and 3. To issue fresh notification inviting applications to the post, strictly in accordance with the Statutes.” 7. Admittedly, even according to the petitioner, the Syndicate has the competence to prescribe the qualification. The WP(C) Nos.26398/2005 & 20109/2010 -4- authority competent to prescribe the qualifications has competence to amend the same also. It is on that basis, the petitioner in WP(C) No.20109/2010 seeks an order for further proceedings on the basis of Ext.P6 therein. Now that after some years, the Syndicate has passed a fresh resolution cancelling its resolution dated 23/05/2005, and therefore, as at present, the qualification which the University has to follow is the qualification that is prescribed in the Statute. The aforesaid resolution also shows that the University has cancelled notification dated 19/08/2005 and it was therefore that fresh notification has been issued inviting applications. The resolution is not under challenge and therefore the consequent notification (Ext.P10 in WP(C) No.20109/2010) cannot be challenged. In the light of this, WP(C) No.26398/2005 has become infructuous, and Ext.P10 notification in WP(C) No.20109/2010 deserves to be upheld. Therefore, WP(C) No.26398/2005 is closed as infructuous and WP(C) No.20109/2010 is dismissed. These writ petitions are disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg