Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SANTHOSH P. versus THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SANTHOSH P. v. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT - WP(C) No. 16971 of 2007(U) [2007] RD-KL 9506 (5 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 16971 of 2007(U)

1. SANTHOSH P.,
... Petitioner

2. SATHYANATHAN K.,

3. RAMANA K.,

4. SHINCY C.,

5. MUBEEN A.P.,

6. NEEMAKUMARI B.,

7. SHAJI N.V.,

8. VIJI C.,

9. LATHA T.C.,

10. MINI M.,

11. PAVITHRA N.,

12. SREEGEN E.M.,

13. BEENA P.,

14. GEETHANJALI P.,

15. RAZIYA P.,

16. SUSMITHA K.,

17. BINDU P.,

18. SUNILA P.,

19. PRASEENA P.,

20. LINI K.,

21. SUJATHA K.V.,

22. REENA O.,

23. JAMAKAR K.J.,

24. GOPINATHAN N.P.,

25. SIRAJ NAHA K.,

26. GEEJA P.,

27. AJITHAKUMARI P.K.

28. SUNDARAN P.,

29. MUHAMMED JAMAL A.P.,

30. SAJEEB P.T.,

31. BEENA P.,

32. JAYASREE T.K.,

33. SUBAIR T.,

34. BABHITHA, G.,

35. AYISHABI V.,

36. GEETHA U.,

37. REMADEVI K.,

38. SHAJI P.K.,

39. BEENA CHELUR,

40. PRIYA C.N.,

41. NISHA C.,

42. HYMAVATHI P.,

43. BRIJULA K.B.,

44. BINDU A.R.,

45. VINOD V.P.,

46. REENA M.,

47. BINU RANI P.,

48. ASHALETHA N.K.,

49. REMA V.,

50. GEETHA C.M.,

51. BIJUKUMAR P.M.,

52. REENA V.,

53. GEETHA P.,

54. MAHAROOF ALI K.,

55. SAJITHA P.,

56. JYOTHISH K.T.,

57. LEENA K.,

58. JAZAM P.A.,

59. REENA M.,

60. SOBHANA P.K.,

61. LILLYKUMARI P.,

62. SHEEBA K.,

63. P. BINDU,

64. MUHAMMED BASHEER N.K.,

65. BINCY N.,

66. LATHA P.,

67. SHEENA G.P.,

68. MANOJ T.,

69. ANI MELEPPURATH,

70. SHITHA T.,

71. BINI M.,

72. KUNDERI ABIDA,

73. SAJA BABU T.V.,

74. SUNILKUMAR T.,

75. ABBAS P.,

76. DEVADASAN P.,

77. REENA M.,

78. PUSHPALATHA M.P.,

79. NISHA A.S.,

80. SHEEJA K.P.,

81. RAMAN K.,

82. JISHITHA M.V.,

83. SOBHA K.T.,

84. RADHADEV K.,

85. NIRMALA K.,

86. HARINARAYANAN C.,

87. PRASANNA E.,

88. ANITHA KUMARI C.G.,

89. RETHNAKUMARI C.,

90. NAIR SINDHU M.K. UNNI,

91. BINDU PODEER,

92. LIMNA P.,

93. SABITHA K.,

94. REKHA C.,

95. JALAJABAI K.

96. PRAVITHA C.,

97. ANANDAVALLY P.K.,

98. PRASANTHI BAI M.K.,

99. REKHAKUMARI V.P.,

100. SINDHU C.K.,

101. SHYNI C.,

102. MALINI T.,

103. NISHANTH K.M.,

104. GEETHA T.V.,

Vs

1. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT ,
... Respondent

2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR,

For Petitioner :SRI.P.SANJAY

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER

Dated :05/06/2007

O R D E R

A.K.BASHEER, J.

W.P.(C)No.16971 OF 2007

Dated this the 5th day of June, 2007



JUDGMENT

Petitioners are stated to be working as Assistant Grade II in the University of Calicut. It is admitted by the petitioners that they have been working on daily wage basis. The grievance or apprehension of the petitioners appears to be that their services are likely to be terminated by the University forthwith, particularly in view of Ext.P2 judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this court directing the University to complete the process of selection for regular appointment to the post of Assistant Grade-II within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It was further ordered by the Division Bench that the daily wage employees appointed on provisional basis cannot be allowed to continue beyond two months from the date of judgment, viz., April 4, 2007.

2. It is contended by the petitioners that the University is not justified in terminating their services particularly, since the selection process is reportedly stalled now. It is further contended that the attempt of the University is to make back door W.P.(C)No.16971 OF 2007 appointments of daily wage employees after terminating petitioners' services.

3. However, learned Standing Counsel, after getting instructions, submits that the University does not intend to make any appointment of provisional hands at present. Even if such a contingency arises, appointments will be made only from among candidates nominated by the Employment Exchange. Such a list has already been prepared and it is kept ready. The above submission is recorded.

4. Petitioners have made another prayer for a direction to the University to make appointment of Assistant Grade II only from the list of 444 candidates prepared by it. This court need not consider that issue at this stage. It is for the University to decide the courses of action. I do not find any reason to issue any direction in this regard since petitioners do not have a case that their rights are likely to be affected. More importantly the above issue has been settled by the Division Bench in Ext.P2 judgment. Writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.

A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE

jes


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.