IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2009 / 14TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34000 of 2007(V) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SREEDHAR P.NAIR, VAISAKHAM HOUSE, TEMPLE ROAD, THODUPUZHA-685 584, IDUKKI. BY ADV. MR.ELVIN PETER P.J. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KANNUR UNIVERSITY, MANGATTUPARAMBA, KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS P.O., KANNUR – 670 567, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, KANNUR UNIVERSITY, MANGATTUPARAMBA, KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS P.O., KANNUR-670 567. 3. THE REGISTRAR, KANNUR UNIVERSITY, MANGATTUPARAMBA, KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS P.O., KANNUR-670 567. 4. PRAVEEN KUMAR P.V., PUTHEN VALAPPIL HOUSE, P.O.KOTTAKKAL, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY MR.M.SASEENDRAN,SC,KANNUR UNIVERSITY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.34000/2007-V: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD. 04/10/2006 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF KANNUR UNIVERSITY. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.06/10/2007 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE RANKED LIST DTD. 06/10/2007 ISSUED BY THE R.3. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT. 13/05/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT. 27/05/2008 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, KANNUR UNIVERSITY. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, KANNUR UNIVERSITY ALONG WITH EXT.P.5. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 34000 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 5th August, 2009. J U D G M E N T By Ext. P 1 notification, the 1st respondent-University invited applications for appointment to one post of Lecturer in Management studies. The post being one sanctioned under a plan scheme, it had to be compulsorily filled up by 31-3-2007. Ext. P3 rank list was published pursuant to a selection process. The 4th respondent was ranked no. 1 and the petitioner no. 2 in the rank list. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent was not willing to join duty at all. But, he was persuaded to join duty on 19-3-2007. After joining, he immediately left after submitting an application for leave, which was not sanctioned. He was unauthorisedly absent for a long time. The University directed him to report for duty on 18-1-2008. The 4th respondent rejoined for duty on that day and from 21-1-2008 to 23-1- 2008 he attended duty. Thereafter, he left and never rejoined duty. According to the petitioner, the vacancy therefore is open and the petitioner being the second rank holder, is entitled to be appointed from the select list. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the University in which it is contended that the selection was for only one single post and the first rank holder had already joined duty. When after selection for a single post one person from the rank list is appointed, the rank list ceases to be in operation on such appointment and therefore nobody else can be appointed from that rank list. It is further contended that even today, the services of the 4th respondent has not been legally terminated and therefore technically, there is no vacancy, although the 4th respondent is unauthorisedly absent from duty. Learned counsel for the University relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Raghbir Chand Sharma and another, (2002) 1 SCC 113 in support of his contention that a rank list containing W.P.C. No. 34000/07 -: 2 :- several names for a single post ceases to exist with the appointment of the first candidate and nobody else in the rank list can claim appointment in the vacancy arising out of such appointee ceasing to hold the post. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. I am satisfied that the petitioner is not entitled to succeed in this writ petition for two reasons. Firstly, although the 4th respondent is not attending duties of the post for which Ext. P3 select list had been prepared, insofar as his services have not been legally terminated by a process known to law, the post cannot be said to be vacant. Therefore, the petitioner cannot aspire for appointment to any vacancy subsisting. 5. Secondly, the decision cited by the University (Raghbir Chand Sharma's case) stands in the way of the petitioner. In that decision, the Supreme Court has categorically held that a selected panel containing several names for a single post of Assistant Advocate General ceases to exist with the appointment of the first candidate and therefore none else in the panel could claim appointment in the vacancy arising out of the resignation of such appointee or vacancies arising subsequently. The ratio of that decision is squarely applicable to the case at hand and therefore the petitioner cannot aspire for appointment to the post. For the above reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/