Kerala High Court
Anoop Kumar B.K vs University Of Calicut on 11 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 17679 OF 2014
PETITIONER:
ANOOP KUMAR B.K.,
PONNUSHUS, VILLOONNIYAL,
THENHIPALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.B.HOOD
SRI.AMAL KASHA
SMT.M.ISHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM - 673 635
2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM,
MALAPPURAM - 673 635
3 ABDUL RASHEED,
KADAKULATH CHALIYIL HOUSE,
CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., MALAPPURAM - 673 635
BY ADV SRI.K.R.GANESH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 17679 OF 2014
-2-
JUDGMENT
Petitioner in an earlier round of litigation challenged the
entire selection in pursuance to the notification issued for filling
the post of Driver (LV) in the Kerala State Road Transport
Corporation ('KSRTC' for short) by filing Writ Petition(C)
No.27302/2013. The writ petition was dismissed by this Court.
Writ Appeal No.343/2014 filed against the aforementioned
judgment also was dismissed. Present writ petition is filed
challenging the selection of the 3rd respondent, on the ground that
the Experience Certificate placed on record did not fulfil the
requisite qualification. Attention of this Court has been drawn to
two certificates issued in the year 2013 alleging that the
petitioner lacks the period of experience as prescribed in the
notification. It is also submitted that Writ Appeal No.343/2014
was pending at the time of filing this writ petition, but dismissed
during the pendency.
WP(C) NO. 17679 OF 2014
2. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents submits that the present writ petition is
not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Petitioner ought to
have challenged the above facts when the earlier writ petition was
filed. Therefore the principles of res judicata in view of the
Code of Civil Procedure may be applied.
3. I have heard counsel for the parties and appraised the
paper books.
4. Repeated filing of the writ petitions on the ground of
the information received, after the dismissal of the previous writ
petition cannot be allowed to be perpetuated with the impunity as
such type of litigants should have been sensitised through the
legal advice qua the outcome of the writ petition with some costs.
Once the entire selection process was challenged and did not
succeed, cannot be permitted to volt-face by laying challenge
regarding the appointment of 3rd respondent. I do not find any
WP(C) NO. 17679 OF 2014
merit in the writ petition. It is a sheer prudence at the behest of
the petitioner. The writ petition is wholly atrocious and
fallacious. It is dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to
the Bar Association of Kerala High Court within a period of one
month. In case the cost is not paid by placing the receipt thereof
in file, Registry is directed to place the file on record for further
action.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
vv
WP(C) NO. 17679 OF 2014
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17679/2014
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE
CERTIFICATE PRODUCED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT, OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO
INFORMATION ACT
EXHIBIT P3 P3 - TRUE OCPY OF THE EXPERIENCE
CERTIFICATE PRODUCED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT, BTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO
INFORMATION ACT
EXHIBIT P4 P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OBTAINED
BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO
INFORMATION ACT
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R1(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC
27302/2013 DATED 07.11.2013.
EXHIBIT R1(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A
343/2014 DATED 12.08.2014.
EXHIBIT R1(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED
16.02.2009.
