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