Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANU SIVARAMAN, MARY JOSEPH, JJ
DR.V.MADHU – Appellant
Versus
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (CUSAT) – Respondent
RP 306/2022
Review - Educational Qualification - Right to Information Act - The review petitions were dismissed as the allegations regarding qualifications were previously considered, and new evidence from RTI was insufficient to warrant review.
Fact of the Case:
Review petitions were filed by a petitioner alleging that a respondent was unqualified for the post of Associate Professor. The petitioner referenced information obtained under the Right to Information Act to support the claim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the contentions in the review petitions had been previously considered and that the new documents presented did not provide sufficient grounds for a review of the earlier judgment.
Issues: Whether new information obtained through the RTI Act justified a review of the previous decisions regarding the eligibility of a respondent for the Associate Professor position.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once a decision has been rendered after due consideration of evidence and arguments, new evidence obtained later does not automatically warrant a review of that decision.
Final Decision: The review petitions are dismissed.
O R D E R
Anu Sivaraman, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. These review petitions are filed alleging that the contentions raised by the review petitioner in the writ appeals had not been specifically considered by the Division Bench. It is further submitted that the SLP had been dismissed in limine and that therefore, the review petitions are maintainable. Further, it is contended that in view of Annexure A5 document, which was obtained by the review petitioner under the Right to Information Act from the respondent University, it would be clear that the 2nd respondent in R.P.Nos.292/2022 and 306/2022 was not eligible or qualified in terms of the notification or the UGC guidelines for appointment to the post of Associate Professor in Meteorology under the CUSAT.
3. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the appeals had been considered and disposed of after considering all the contentions raised by the parties thereto. The contentions raised in the review petitions with regard to the documents produced by the 2nd respondent in W.A. Nos.1356/2019 and 1664/2019 were also considered at paragraph 13 of the judgment. Further, the Bench had also specifically held that since the selection to the post was made in accordance with the UGC Regulations, there was no reason to interfere with the same and since the matter is being decided on available facts, it is not necessary to make mention of the judgments cited.
4. Though we are in agreement with the learned counsel for the review petitioner that a review petition would be maintainable since the SLP had been dismissed in limine, we are of the opinion that the grounds raised in these review petitions do not justify a review of the judgment. Annexure A5, which is a document obtained by the review petitioner by making Annexure A4 query under the Right to Information Act , after the dismissal of the SLP, cannot be a ground to review a judgment which was rendered on the facts available on record and after hearing the contentions of all the parties and after considering such contentions at considerable length.
In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that these review petitions are not liable to be entertained. The review petitions fail and the same are, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/- ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE Sd/- MARY JOSEPH JUDGE
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08-03-2019 IN W.P(C)N NO 8341 OF 2016 Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 26-07- 2021 OF THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT IN S.L.P (C)NOS. 1782-1784/2021 Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION DATED 04-11- 2021, SUBMITTED BY THE REVIEW PETITIONER TO THE
1ST RESPONDENT, CUSAT.
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI REPLY DATED 29-11-2021, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, CUSAT TO THE REVIEW PETITIONER.
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE DATED 23.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION APPENDIX OF RP 293/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES :- Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT'S APPLICATION DATED 02-09-2015 FOR THE POST OF ASS0CIATE PROFESSOR IN METEOLOGY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT CUSAT Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 08-03-2019 IN W.P(C) NO. 8341 OF 2016 Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 26-07- 2021 OF THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT IN SLP (C)
NOS 1782-1784/2021 Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION DATED 04-11- 2021 SUBMITTED BY THE REVIEW PETITIONER TO THE
1ST RESPONDENT, CUSAT.
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI REPLY DATED 29-11-2021, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, CUSAT TO THE REVIEW PETITIONER.
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE
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
