IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2009 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 25304 of 2007(K) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- ALWIN JOSEPH TONY, S/O P.J. ANTONY, AGED 34 YEARS, PULLATTU HOUSE, PALA P.O., KOTTAYAM DIST, KERALA STATE. BY ADV. MR.JOSE THOMAS (PALA) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT UNIVERSITY BUILDING, KOCHI-22, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS, KOCHI-22. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.A.A.ABUL HASSAN,SC,COCHIN UNIVERSIT, MR.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI,SC,COCHI UNIVERSIT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO. 25304/2007-K APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SELECT/RANK LIST PUBLISHED IN KERALA GAZETTE NO.36 VOLUME 50, DATED 6TH SEPT. 2005. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12/09/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 10/10/2007 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMTION ACT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO RESPONDENTS. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 18/12/2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT IN MATHRUBOOMI DILY DATED 21/02/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(A): COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AV(3)44221/06/GW DATED 09/05/2007 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Rs/ P.N.Ravindran, J. ================== W.P.(C) No.25304 of 2007 ===================== Dated this the 5th day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT Heard Sri. Jose Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. S.P.Aravindakshan Pillai, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Cochin University of Science and Technology. 2. The petitioner is a candidate included in Ext.P1 ranked list published by the University for the post of Assistant Grade II. The ranked list is dated 26.5.2005 and it was published in the Kerala Gazette dated 6.9.2005. The ranked list was valid for a period of two years. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the validity of the ranked list is two years from the date of publication and therefore the Writ Petition was filed within the said period of two years. The learned standing counsel for the University contends that the ranked list was valid for two years from the date of notification and the mere fact that it was published in the Kerala Gazette later does not result in enlargement of the period of validity. The notification by which the ranked list was published is dated 25.6.2005. The ranked list was published in the Kerala Gazette on 6.9.2005. The notification states that the ranked list will be in force for a period of two years from the date of the notification. Therefore, the period of two years expired on 24.5.2007. This Writ WP(C) 25304/07 -: 2 :- Petition was filed on 18.8.2007 after the ranked list ceased to be in force. Further, another set of candidates included in the ranked list have moved this Court in W.P.(C) No.15353 of 2007 seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the University to fill up the vacancies by appointing them to the category of Assistant Grade II. That Writ Petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by judgment delivered on 25.5.2007. The petitioners therein carried the matter in appeal. By judgment delivered on 23.8.2007 the Writ Appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench holding that it is for the University to decide whether all the vacancies that existed during the currency of the list should be filled or not and that as the stand taken taken by the University in its counter affidavit is that the vacancies available were only temporary vacancies, the appellants cannot be granted any relief. In my opinion, in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1979 of 2007, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 15/3