Dr.J.Vijayan vs Dr.J.Vijayan
2021 Latest Caselaw 4362 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

                                &

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

     FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 16TH MAGHA,1942

                RP.No.96 OF 2021 IN WA. 1236/2020

  AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.12.2020 IN WA 1236/2020 OF HIGH
                         COURT OF KERALA


REVIEW PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:

             DR.J.VIJAYAN,
             AGED 58 YEARS
             S/O. K.JANARDHANAN, RESIDING AT ARATHIYIL, KADUVINAL
             P.O., VALLIKUNNAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 501.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN
             SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB

RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS & 2ND RESPONDENT:

      1      UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
             TIRUR-CALICUT ROAD, THENHIPALAM, CALICUT UNIVERSITY
             P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 635, REPRESENTED BY ITS
             REGISTRAR.

      2      THE REGISTRAR
             LAKSHADWEEP CELL, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, P M SAYEED
             CALICUT UNIVERSITY CENTRE, ANDROTT, LAKSHADWEEP, PIN-
             682 551.

      3      UNION OF INDIA
             REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (EDUCATION), UNION
             TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, LAKSHADWEEP ADMINISTRATION,
             PIN-682 555.


THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.02.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
    R.P.No.96/2021 in
   W.A.No.1236/2020                             2




                                        ORDER

Dated this the 5th day of February 2021 Shaffique, J.

This review petition has been filed inter alia contending that, even if the

communal rotation is considered, the petitioner will get the benefit of being appointed

in terms of the present rank list. If there is any violation of the communal rotation as

contended by the petitioner, it shall be open for the petitioner to take appropriate

proceedings in accordance with law.

2. In this matter, we have set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge,

who had formed an opinion that Rules 14 to 17 of KS & SSR would not apply. In terms

of Section 6(2) of the University Act, it is clearly indicated that the University shall

follow the provisions of clauses (a), (b), (c) or Rule 14 and Rules 15, 16 and 17 of the KS

& SSR, 1958. It is for the competent authority to verify whether the Rules have been

followed in terms of the statutory provisions. If the petitioner is aggrieved on account

of the same , it shall be open for him to agitate the issues in appropriate proceedings.

With the above observation, the review petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

A.M.SHAFFIQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE

acd