IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2011 / 10TH ASHADHA 1933 RP.No. 443 of 2011(W) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.12985/2011 Dated 01/06/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR. 2. DEAN, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, VELLAYANI. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB KERALA AGRI UNIVER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. A.ANIL KUMAR, FARM ASSISTANT SENIOR GRADE, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, VELLAYANI. 2. KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, MAIN CAMPUS, POOKOT, WAYANAD. 3. REGISTRAR, KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY, MANNUTHY, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI FOR R1 & R2 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RP 443/2011 APPENDIX 1. CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 01/06/2011 IN WPC 12985/2011. \\TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ R.P.No.443/2011 in W.P.(C). No.12985/2011-W ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 1st day of July, 2011 O R D E R This review petition is filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the writ petition. 2. The writ petition was disposed of by Judgment dated 01/06/2011 whereby the Agricultural University was directed to take a fresh decision in the light of the revocation of the option submitted by the petitioner. 3. It is a case where the petitioner entered service of the Agricultural University as Farm Assistant and by successive promotions became Farm Assistant (Veterinary) Senior Grade. 4. Options were invited from the employees of the Agricultural University, consequent on the formation of Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University to join the same. The same led to the dispute raised in the writ petition. R.P.No.443/2011 -:2:- 5. According to the petitioner, the option was revoked by him on 30/03/2011 as per Ext.P3. 6. After considering various aspects, this Court held that the revocation submitted by the petitioner on 30/03/2011 as per Ext.P3 was a valid one. One of the objections raised by the Agricultural University before this Court was that no date was specified for submitting revocation of option and it was held that the absence of any provision for submitting revocation is immaterial. 7. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Agricultural University, learned counsel for the Veterinary University and the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. 8. The learned Standing Counsel for the Agricultural University submitted that herein two circumstances will go to show that the option submitted by the writ petitioner was accepted finally by the Veterinary University. Firstly it is pointed out that the last date for submission of option was 09/02/2011 and the list of employees who opted the Veterinary R.P.No.443/2011 -:3:- University was handed over to the Registrar of the said University on 14/02/2011 and, therefore, the petitioner could not have submitted revocation after the said date. Even going by Ext.P5 Circular of the Agricultural University, it can be seen that after the receipt of the list of employees whose option was accepted by the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, the last date fixed for receipt of the report on the various aspects fixed therein was 16/04/2011 whereas the revocation of option was submitted by the writ petitioner already on 30/03/2011. 9. The learned Standing Counsel for the Agricultural University submitted that once the Veterinary University has taken the decision, the entire thing has become final and the revocation cannot be acted upon. The stand taken by the Veterinary University is clear from para.6 of the Judgment wherein it is pointed out that there is no objection in the Agricultural University considering the request of the petitioner to revoke the option submitted by him. R.P.No.443/2011 -:4:- 10. Therefore, if the said Veterinary University has no objection in the matter, I fail to understand why the Agricultural University is again raising hyper technical pleas. The second objection now raised by the learned Standing Counsel is that the writ petitioner submitted revocation only to the Dean of the University and not directly to the Registrar. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the Dean is the controlling officer and it cannot therefore be said that it is not valid. Evidently, the revocation of the option was also forwarded by the Dean to the Respondent-University going by the various actions taken with regard to the option submitted. 30/03/2011 is not the crucial date as even thereafter Ext.P5 has been issued on 07/04/2011. The petitioner was relieved only on 09/05/2011 after the filing of the writ petition and before that he was not given any communication rejecting the revocation also. 11. Evidently, the jury relationship of employee- employer was continuing even at the time the petitioner submitted the revocation of option. R.P.No.443/2011 -:5:- 12. All the arguments were considered while rendering the Judgment. There is no error apparent, requiring review of the same. Hence the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms