VINODAN T Vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
LAWS(SC)-2002-4-159
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KERALA)
Decided on April 26,2002

VINODAN T. Appellant
VERSUS
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

STATE OF HARYANA VS. PIARA SINGH [REFERRED]



Cited Judgements :-

UNION OF INDIA VS. KULDEEP KUMAR [LAWS(DLH)-2014-7-185] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH SINGH VS. VIDYADHIRAJ PANDEY [LAWS(ALL)-2006-7-204] [REFFERED TO]
SANJAY KUMAR SAXENA VS. CIRCLE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER PERSONAL DEPARTMENT STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2003-9-26] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NARESH RAIKWAR VS. DIVISIONAL MANAGER LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2004-1-22] [REFERRED TO]
NAVJIWAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2014-5-560] [REFERRED TO]
SANJEEV PURI VS. STATE [LAWS(J&K)-2006-11-23] [REFERRED TO]
V ARUMUGAPERUMAL VS. CHAIRMAN TAMIL NADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [LAWS(MAD)-2012-8-160] [REFERRED TO]
GANGAMATI PATEL VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2008-9-81] [REFERRED TO]
RAJIV PRASHAR VS. NARESH DUBEY AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2009-7-318] [REFERRED]
RAVINDER SIROHI VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2019-2-136] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. VS. ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-2-157] [REFERRED TO]
K ANANDA REDDY VS. APPSC HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-2003-7-136] [REFERRED TO]
SHESHDHAR AWASTHI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-10-87] [REFERRED TO]
YOGENDRA NATH TRIPATHI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2003-5-153] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP KUMAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-5-64] [REFERRED TO]
JAI PARKASH & OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2008-7-165] [REFERRED]
JITENDRA KALITA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2006-5-49] [REFERRED TO]
ANUJ KUMAR BHARTI VS. NATIONAL BOOK TRUST [LAWS(DLH)-2008-7-257] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. TAPAS CHAKRABORTY [LAWS(CAL)-2005-1-20] [REFERRED TO]
SAROJ AND ORS. VS. STATE AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-5-111] [REFERRED TO]
HEMENDERA KUMAR JANGID VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-12-68] [REFERRED TO]
PATEL JANHVIBEN JAYANTILAL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-10-1476] [REFERRED TO]
PRAMODH VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2002-9-100] [REFERRED]
TRISHA BHATTACHARJEE VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2020-8-8] [REFERRED TO]
SANDHYA SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2013-8-23] [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN WEST BENGAL COUNCIL OF CENTRAL SCHOOL SERVICE COMMISSION VS. PRABIR KUMAR GHOSH [LAWS(CAL)-2009-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. DUKHI LAL RAM PRASAD AND CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(ALL)-2005-10-13] [REFERRED TO]
BALWAN SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-2-135] [REFERRED TO]
AMBUJA SATPATHY VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2022-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
TIKENDRAJIT SINGHA VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2008-12-11] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICE SELECTION BOARD (DSSSB) VS. PUNEET KUMAR [LAWS(DLH)-2020-1-31] [REFERRED TO]
THE GOVERNING BODY OF BANKINM SARDAR COLLEGE AND ANR. VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2016-10-34] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL SHARAN SINHA VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-2005-4-84] [REFERRED TO]
PRANAB BAISHYA : ALOK KUMAR SHARMA : SHEROJIT SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA : NCCT [LAWS(DLH)-2019-1-463] [REFERRED TO]
SUBRAT KUMAR BEHERA VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. [LAWS(ORI)-2017-1-87] [REFERRED TO]
SATYENDRA DWIVEDI VS. ADMINISTRATOR NAGAR MAHAPALIKA [LAWS(ALL)-2003-11-4] [REFERRED TO]
NIRMAL BAG VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2019-2-180] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL BISWAS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2019-2-181] [REFERRED TO]
KONA SRINIVAS VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2003-9-112] [REFERRED TO]
GANESH MUKHERJEE VS. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION [LAWS(CAL)-2003-4-62] [REFERRED TO]
KANUBHAI RAMSINGBHAI HATHILA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-1-323] [REFERRED TO]
SYED KHAIRUL ANAM SAMSUDDIN VS. GAUHATI UNIVERSITY REPRESENT-ED BY THE REGISTRAR [LAWS(GAU)-2013-9-62] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN LAL KADWASRA VS. RAJ STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-1-222] [REFERRED TO]
SOLANKI J SHAMJIBHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2006-1-42] [REFERRED TO]
SURAJ SINGH DHAKAD VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2022-8-91] [REFERRED TO]
VIKAS PRATAP SINGH VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(SC)-2013-7-83] [REFERRED TO]
SAHIL AGGARWAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2014-4-242] [REFERRED TO]
SUMANTA KUMAR SAHOOO VS. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(ORI)-2019-11-27] [REFERRED TO]
MALABAR CEMENT LTD VS. SECRETARY MCL LABOUR UNION CITU [LAWS(KER)-2006-3-65] [REFERRED TO]
RAJAN KUMAR SINGH VS. RAJENDRA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-6-73] [REFERRED TO]
D YANGFO VS. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADSEH [LAWS(GAU)-2005-9-65] [REFFERRED TO 10.]
AKHILESH KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2003-12-94] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NARESH SINGH AND 26 OTHERS; KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA; ANIL KUMAR; ASHWANI KUMAR AND 8 ORS; MUKESH KUMAR AND 5 OTHERS; ARUN KUMAR YADAV VS. STATE OF U P AND 29 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-12-150] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The appellants in the several appeals, seek to assail the cancellation of a rank list prepared for the post of Assistant Grade -II by the University of Calicut, the respondent No. 1 before us. The appellants had been selected pursuant to a notification issued on 1/11/1991 inviting applications for preparation of a panel for appointment as Assistants Grade-II in the University. The selection was made after a written test and interview and a rank list was prepared on 25/10/1995. The appellants' claim is that the rank list should have been operative for a period of three years and that the respondents were bound to appoint them to vacancies which had arisen within that period.
(2.)The appellants in CA 4906/ 2000 challenged the action of the University in curtailing the period of the validity of the rank list to two years before the High Court of Kerala by filing a writ petition. The learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition on 7/01/1998 by noting the submission of the University that:
"As and when necessity arises for employing more persons, the University is prepared to make appointments from Ext. P1 rank list. But it is made clear that such appointees will not have any claim either for future appointment or for regular appointment. It is purely a stop-gap arrangement pending regular recruitment to the post".

(3.)These appellants challenged the order of the single Judge by filing an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The other appellants before us filed Original Petitions also assailing the action of the University.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.