Professor(Dr) Sreejith P.S vs Dr.Rajasree M.S
2021 Latest Caselaw 20051 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
    THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
                               &
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
 FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 2ND ASWINA, 1943
                     RP NO. 634 OF 2021
 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT dated 02.08.2021IN WA No.514/2021 OF
              HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT:

         PROFESSOR(DR) SREEJITH P.S
         AGED 62 YEARS
         ASHTAPATHY, KANIYANKUNNU, EAST KADUNGALLOOR,
         U.C.COLLEGE P.O., ALUVA-683102, KERALA.


         BY ADV SHYAM KRISHNAN


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

    1    DR.RAJASREE M.S
         T.C.20/1679(1), MITHILA, SASTRI NAGAR, KARAMANA
         P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695002, NOW
         WORKING AS VICE-CHANCELLOR OF APJ ABDUL KALAM
         TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, CET CAMPUS,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695016.


    2    THE CHANCELLOR,
         APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, KERALA
         RAJ BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.


    3    APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,
         CET CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695016,
         REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.


    4    GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
         REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER
         EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
 R.P.No.634 of 2021
in
W.A.No.514 of 2021            :2:




     5     THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION,
           REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR
           MARG, NEW DELHI-110002.


           BY ADVS.SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.)
           SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.)
           BY SRI.PREMCHAND R. NAIR, SR. GOVT. PLEADER
           R1 BY SMT.RADHAMANI AMMA
           SHRI.ELVIN PETER, SC, APJ ABDUL KALAM
           TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
           SRI.K.K.RAVINDRANATH, ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL
           SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC SMT.K.RADHAMANI AMMA
           SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, COUNSEL FOR THE
           CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITIES IN KERALA
           SHRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL

     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 R.P.No.634 of 2021
in
W.A.No.514 of 2021                   :3:




                               ORDER

A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

The aforesaid Review Petition has been preferred by the

appellant in W.A.No.514 of 2021 seeking a review of the judgment

dated 02.08.2021 of this Court dismissing the Writ Appeal. The learned

counsel for the review petitioner submits that during the course of

arguments in the writ appeal, he had sought to distinguish the

judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court in Madhu Bahuguna Vs.

Uttarakhand Public Service Commission and Others [2020 SCC

Online Utt 18], that was brought to his notice by the court, and that

after the completion of hearing, an argument note clarifying the points

urged during the hearing was also submitted by him. It is pointed out

that the said argument note does not find a mention in the impugned

judgment of this Court and to that extent the judgment requires to be

reviewed. Secondly, it is also submitted that on the 3 rd issue regarding

the manner in which the Search Committee had forwarded the name of

a sole candidate for appointment as Vice Chancellor, this Court had R.P.No.634 of 2021 in

erroneously recorded the submission of the learned counsel for the

appellant as contending that the said action of the Search Committee

was on account of an erroneous interpretation of Section 13(4) of the

University Act. It is the case of the learned counsel that his contention

was that the requirement was intended to confer a discretion on the

Chancellor to choose one among a panel of names and this purpose was

defeated through the action of the Search Committee.

2. We have heard Sri.Shyam Krishnan, the learned counsel for the

Review Petitioner.

3. On a consideration of the said submissions, we find no reason

to review the judgment impugned herein. The applicability of the

judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court to the facts of the instant case

was considered by us after hearing the elaborate contentions on either

side. It was, thereafter, and on the request of the learned counsel for

the appellant, that we permitted him to submit an argument note to put

his contentions on record. While dictating the judgment in chambers

after the hearing, we felt that it was sufficient to refer to the argument

note and state in the judgment the reasons why we thought that the

judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court was applicable to the facts of R.P.No.634 of 2021 in

this case. Having done so, we don't think the absence of an elaborate

discussion on the argument note and the averments therein regarding

the inapplicability of the said judgment, warrant a review of our

judgment.

We also do not find any merit in the other grounds urged in the

Review Petition for we had recorded the submissions made by the

learned counsel at the time of hearing and it is after due consideration

of the said submissions that we proceeded to dismiss the writ appeal. A

Review Petition cannot be a ruse for re-arguing a writ appeal on merits.

The Review Petition fails, and is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE mns