Back
ARAVIND KUMAR, N. V. ANJARIA
Radhika T. – Appellant
Versus
Cochin University of Science and Technology – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
N.V. ANJARIA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These two Appeals preferred by the appellant-original petitioner, arise out of the judgment and order dated 12.07.2023 in Writ Appeal No. 534 of 2023 and order dated 13.09.2025 in Review Petition No. 1202 of 2023 respectively, passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Kerala, whereby the High Court dismissed both the writ appeal and review petition, confirming the dismissal of the Writ Petition.
2.1. In the Writ Petition, the appellant-petitioner prayed to direct respondent No. 1-Cochin University of Science and Technology, Kalamassery and its Registrar-respondent No. 2, to appoint the appellant as Associate Professor, Inorganic Chemistry (Scheduled Caste) in the Department of Applied Chemistry. It was next prayed to declare as illegal communication dated 16.09.2022 of the University rejecting the case of the petitioner for being appointed against the vacancy, which had arisen upon resignation of appointee candidate-one Dr. Anitha C. Kumar.
2.2. The appellant-petitioner staked her claim to be appointed on the basis that the appellant was ranked second in the Rank List/Wait List prepared pursuant to the recruitment process and that the
The court established that provisions for creating rank lists and communal rotation can operate simultaneously, ensuring fair appointment practices in accordance with statutory mandates.
Rule 17A indicates that under this Rule special recruitment can be done from among Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes when they are not adequately represented in any service, class, category or gra....
The court affirmed that the expiration of a rank list does not negate the right to appointment when vacancies exist, emphasizing the binding nature of prior judgments.
Court held that prior judgments regarding appointments must respect factual vacancy determinations, affirming adherence to statutory rules in the context of appointment procedures.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the action of the respondents in not preparing a waiting list in compliance with Rule 15(3) of Rules 1992 was arbitrary and against the spirit....
Point of Law : Recruitment over and above notified vacancies is not in accordance with constitutional mandate of equal opportunity of unemployment, envisaged in Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of ....
Sub-clause (vi) of Rule 277A of Rules of 1996 read as Authorized Agency shall prepare category wise select list of candidates declared successful on basis of criteria of selection laid down.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
