IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2010 / 29TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 19215 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NEENA A., LOWER DIVISION TYPIST, KERALA KALAMANDALAM DEEMED UNIVERSITY, CHERUTHURUTHY, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN SMT.NITA.N.S. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, KERALA KALAMANDALAM DEEMED UNIVERSITY FOR ART AND CULTURE (FORMERLY CHAIRMAN OF KERALA KALAMANDALAM) CHERUTHURUTHY P.O., THRISSUR - 679 531. 2. THE REGISTRAR, KERALA KALAMANDALAM DEEMED UNIVERSITY FOR ART AND CULTURE (FORMERLY SECRETARY OF KERALA KALAMANDALAM) CHERUTHURUTHY P.O., THRISSUR - 679 531. 3. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT CULTURAL AFFAIRS (A)DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 1. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 1. ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHANPILLAY,KER.KALAMAN FOR R1 & R2 BY G.P.SRI.DILIP MOHAN FOR R3 TO R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.19215 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated 20th August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is presently working as Lower Division Typist under the Kerala Kalamandalam Deemed University. This writ petition has been filed apprehending termination from service in the light of Ext.P5 Vigilance Report. The learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that as per letter dated 25.5.2010 that accompanied Ext.P5 the first respondent was directed to offer remarks on Ext.P5. The first respondent is bound to offer remarks in terms of the said requisition and it will be offered after perusing all the relevant records, it is further submitted. It is thus obvious that this writ petition is filed merely on an apprehension. In other words, this writ petition is premature. The learned standing counsel for the first respondent further submitted that if at all any action is required to be taken ultimately against the petitioner, it will be done only in accordance with law. This is recorded and the writ petition is accordingly, closed. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS