IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 RP.No. 801 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.32974/2007 Dated 23/10/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/THIRD PARTY: ---------------------------------------------- DR.P.S.ANIL JOSE, S/O.SEBASTIAN AGED 34, PEZHUMVILA MARY VILASAM, KUMBALAM P.O, KOLLAM KERALA 691 503. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.S.VAIDYANATHAN RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER-RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. DR.R.JOHNSON, SOMAVILAS, VELLIMON P.O, KOLLAM 691 511. 2. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 3. VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, OFFICE OF the UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, OFFICE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.RAMESH SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC FOR UNIVERSITY. SRI.ELVIN PETER THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ R.P.NO.801 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C) NO. 32974 OF 2007 (A) ===================== Dated this the 17th day of August, 2009 O R D E R Heard. 2. The writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 23rd of October, 2008 and the review petitioner was not a party therein. 3. The claim in the writ petition was in relation to appointment of the writ petitioner as Lecturer in Psychology in the post reserved for Latin Catholic/Anglo Indian. This Court in the judgment had observed that the decision of the Syndicate of the University taken on 14/8/2008 to re-notify the post was uncalled for and what the University should have done was to have expedited the enquiry into the caste status of the writ petitioner, that was pending before the KIRTADs. It is now stated that KIRTADs completed the enquiry into the caste status of the petitioner and confirmed that he is a Latin Catholic/Anglo Indian and on that basis submitted a report also and on the basis of that report, writ petitioner has been appointed as Lecturer in Psychology by Annexure X1 order dated 21/3/2009. R.P.NO.801/09 IN WPC No.32974/07 :2 : 4. The review petitioner, who was neither a party to the writ petition nor even a candidate who had applied for the post in response to the notification issued by the University submits that the University had by Annexure II dated 5/3/2007 decided to re- notify the post in view of the complaint that it had received regarding the caste status of the writ petitioner. Referring to Annexures III and IV, it is contended that thereafter interview was held for filling up only the remaining two posts reserved for Muslim and General candidates. On this basis, it is contended that selection to the post reserved for Latin Catholic/Anglo Indian, to which the writ petitioner had applied was given up by the University and therefore the writ petitioner could not have claimed appointment. 5. However reference to Annexure V, the proceedings of the Syndicate dated 26/5/2007 show that subsequent to Annexures II to IV, the Syndicate had resolved to reexamine the case of the writ petitioner pending verification by the KIRTADs. It is also seen that subsequently by Annexure IX, the Syndicate had resolved to appoint the writ petitioner in the Latin Catholic/Anglo Indian category to which he had applied, although the said R.P.NO.801/09 IN WPC No.32974/07 :3 : decision was cancelled by Annexure X. 6. Be that as it may, final decision of the Syndicate to re- notify the post in question was taken only on 14/8/08. It is on that basis the judgment was rendered on 23/10/2008. Nothing is mentioned in the review petition about the decision taken on 14/8/2008. 7. From these facts, it is therefore evident that the case of the review petitioner that the University had decided to cancel the notification in so far as Latin Catholic/Anglo Indian candidate is concerned prior to 14/8/2008 does not carry any weight. Further, when the writ petition was heard, University did not raise the contentions which are now raised by the review petitioner. In any case, the University having invited applications, reserving a post to candidates belonging to Latin Catholic/Anglo Indian, petitioner having applied for the post, his community status having been confirmed, I see no reason to hold that any error has crept into the judgment. I see no reason to review the judgment. Review petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp