Dr. Anwar Shafi C vs Dr. C.L. Joshy
2021 Latest Caselaw 1690 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

     FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 25TH POUSHA, 1942

          Con.Case(C).No.1991 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 19333/2020

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 19333/2020(N) OF HIGH COURT OF
                              KERALA


PETITIONER:

               DR. ANWAR SHAFI C.
               AGED 35 YEARS
               S/O. MOITHEEN KOYA C., CHERATTU HOUSE, MAITHRI ROAD,
               RAMANKUTH P. O., NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
               PIN - 679 330.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL
               SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM)

RESPONDENTS:

      1        DR. C.L. JOSHY,
               (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER),
               REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY
               (P. O.), TENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
               PIN - 673635.

      2        PROF. (DR.) M. K. JAYARAJ
               (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER),
               VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT
               UNIVERSITY (P. O.), TENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
               PIN - 673635.


     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 15.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Con.Case(C).1991/2020 IN WP(C).19333/2020

                                    2

                              JUDGMENT

This contempt case has been filed alleging

that, in spite of the undertaking given by the

learned Standing Counsel for the University and

which is recorded in Annexures A and B orders,

the University was continuing with the process

of selection.

2. The orders in question would show that

this Court had recorded the undertaking of the

University that no interviews had been conducted

by it and this undertaking was subsequently

affirmed in Annexure B order.

3. The proceedings show that, this Court

had subsequently passed an order on 08/12/2020,

clarifying that the University will be at

liberty to continue with the interview, but that

the appointments will only be made after

obtaining orders from this Court.

4. Today, Shri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned

Standing Counsel for the University, submits

that against the interim order of this Court Con.Case(C).1991/2020 IN WP(C).19333/2020

dated 08/12/2020, W.A.No.1727 of 2020 had been

filed and that same has been modified, allowing

appointments to be made, however, being subject

to the result of the writ petition.

Taking note of the afore submissions and

even though the petitioner may be justified in

approaching this Court alleging Contempt of

Court against the respondents for having

violated Annexures A & B, I do not think it will

be necessary for this Court to enter into the

merits of such contention in detail on account

of the afore developments.

In the afore circumstances, this contempt

case is closed. The Registry is directed to post

the writ petition as per roster.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

MC/19.1.2021 Con.Case(C).1991/2020 IN WP(C).19333/2020

APPENDIX OF Con.Case(C) 1991/2020 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT DATED 07.10.2020.

ANNEXURE B CERTIFIED COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT DATED 20.11.2020.

ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 17.11.2020.

ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23.11.2020.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

NIL

MC

                     (TRUE COPY)                PA TO JUDGE