IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 27614 of 2003(K) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ A.PRASANTHAKUMAR S/O. M.APPUKUTTAN NAIR, PANACHIKKAL HOUSE NEDUMKUNNAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.MR.MATHEW JOHN (K) MR.BABY THOMAS MR.SUJESH MENON V.B. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HEALTH SERVICES, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, MEDICAL COLLEGE, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM. 5. THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, AIWAN-E-GALIB MARG, KOTLA ROAD, OPPOSITE MATA SUNDARI COLLEGE FOR WOMEN) NEW DELHI 0 110 002. 6. DR.SANDHYA LECTURER DEPARTMENT OF MICRE BIOLOGY, TRIVANDRUM MEDICAL COLLEGE, TRIVANDRUM. 7. DR.PRASANTH N. LECTURER DEPARTMENT OF MICROBIOLOGY, TRIVANDRUM, MEDICAL COLLEGE, TRIVANDRUM. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.T.B.REMANI R4 BY P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC R5 BY MR.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.27614/2003 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM IN THE MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DTD. 11.6.03. P2:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMTITED BY THE PETITIONER. P3:- COPY OF THE MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR TEACHERS IN MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS REGULATIONS, 1998. P4:- COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(P) NO.145/2000 H & FWD DTD. 16.6.2000. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.27614/2003-K ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 11th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner seeks to challenge Ext.P1 notification whereby it was proposed to appoint Lecturers on contract basis. The appointment was only for a period of one year or till any P.S.C/Employment Exchange hands join duty. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner personally presented Ext.P2 application, the third respondent did not accept the same stating that the petitioner is not qualified to apply for the appointment consequent to the said advertisement. 3. The petitioner has raised various grounds in the writ petition to contend that he is duly qualified. Obviously, notification Ext.P1 dated 11/06/2003 has worked out itself. The period of appointment is also over. In that view of the matter, the writ petition has become academic. The appointees are not made parties in the writ petition also. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms