Joji Anchanattu Etc. Etc. vs Mahatma Gandhi University Etc. Etc.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 1477

UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, SUDHANSHU DHULIA
Joji Anchanattu Etc. Etc. – Appellant
Versus
Mahatma Gandhi University Etc. Etc. – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
Mr. P. N. Misra, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Advocate, Mr. Surin IPE, Advocate, Mr. Shakti Singh, Advocate, Ms. Urvasi Arya, Advocate, Mr. Anmol Kheta, Advocate, Mr. Lakshay Mehta, Advocate, Mr. Karan Kher Gogia, Advocate, Mr. Kumar Kashyap, Advocate, Dr. S.Gopakumaran Nair, Sr. Advocate, Mr. T. G. Narayanan Nair, Advocate, Ms. Priya Balakrishnan, Advocate, Ms. Anupama Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate, Mr. P.V. Sundernath, Senior Advocate Mr. Sameer Shrivastava, Advocate, Mrs. Swagoti Batchas, adv Mr. Sidharth Dave, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Kaleeswaram Raj, Advocate, Mr. Mohammed Sadique T.A., Advocate, Mr. Alim Anvar, Advocate, Ms. Anu K. Joy, Advocate, Ms. Thulasi K. Raj, Advocate, Mr. Raghenth Basant, Advocate, Ms. Liz Mathew, Advocate, Ms. Roopali Lakhotia, Adv Mr. Roy Abraham, Advocate, Ms. Reena Roy, Advocate, Ms. Seema Jain, Advocate, Mr. Akhil Abraham, Advocate, Mr. Himinder Lal, Advocate, Mr. Lakshmeesh S. Kamath, Advocate, Ms. Samriti Ahuja, Advocate, Mr. George Poonthottam, Sr. Advocate, Mr. M. P. Vinod, Advocate, Mr. Atul Shankar, Advocate, Mr. Dileep Pillai, Advocate, Mr. Ajay K. Jain, Advocate, Mr. G. Prakash, Advocate, Ms. Priyanka Prakash, Advocate, Ms. Beena Prakash, Advocate, Mr. N.Venkataraman, ASG, Mr. Udai Khanna, Adv Mr. Jitin Singhal Adv Mr. Saurabh Mishra Adv Ms. Vanshaja Shukla Adv Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, Advocate, Mr. P.N. Ravindran, Sr. Adv Mr. Bindu K. Nair, Advocate, Mr. C. K. Sasi, Advocate, Mr. Abdullah Naseeh, Adv Ms. Meena K.P, Advocate, Mr. Abhisth Kumar, Advocate, Mr. V. K. Sidharthan, Advocate, Mr. Abhisth Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Biju P Raman, Advocate, Counsel for the Appearing Parties.

ORDER

Diary No(s). 6378/2020, 18359/2021, 4237/2020, 11653/2021 & 18358/2021

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for and are granted liberty to withdraw the present petitions.

2. The SLPs are dismissed as withdrawn.

3. Delay condoned.

... .

4. Petitions filed by the Mahatma Gandhi University[1] and Centre for Professional and Advances Studies[2] challenge the judgment passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No.2512 of 2018 and other connected matter.

[1] ("MGU" for short)

[2] ("CPAS" for short)

5. While dealing with the actions of MGU and CPAS created by the Government of Kerala, with presence of one of the representative of the MGU on its Board, the High Court observed as under:

"The action of the University, in cohorts with the Government, to form a Society and terminate the employees in the SFI's, on grounds of abolition of posts, while the institutions are carried on under the newly formed Society smacks of legal malice. It is for an oblique purpose and indirect object; which is to set at naught the inter-parties judgments of this Court and the supreme Court in the various litigations, even prior to W.A. 442/14. It is a direct affront to rule of law and l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(SC) 1477

UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, SUDHANSHU DHULIAJoji Anchanattu Etc. Etc. – AppellantVersusMahatma Gandhi University Etc. Etc. – Respondent

UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, SUDHANSHU DHULIA
Joji Anchanattu Etc. Etc. – Appellant
Versus
Mahatma Gandhi University Etc. Etc. – Respondent