Judgment · High Court

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c) No. 22575 OF 2012 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of December , 2012JUDGMENTThe petitioner, who is the Registrar of the Kannur University isbefore this Court challenging the suspension. It is brought to the noticeof this Court that in the course of further developments, the veryselection and appointment of the petitioner as the Registrar of theUniversity was challenged in two other writ petitions and afterconsidering the merits, this Court has already set aside the selectionand appointment as per the common judgment dated 28/11/2012 inW.P.(C)Nos.17319/2011 & 22528/2011 and as such, this matter hasvirtually become infructuous.2.However, this Court came to note that the version of theVice-Chancellor as intended to be brought to the notice of this Court asper his affidavit was not the stand reflected from the pleadings andproceedings filed by the learned counsel representing the University. Itwas in the said circumstances, that this Court passed an interim order W.P.(C)No.22575/20122on 19.11.2012 directing the learned Standing Counsel to file anaffidavit as to the course and events with reference to the Statement andRejoinder filed by him before this Court and also with reference toExt.P9(c) Counter affidavit stated as executed and forwarded by thefirst respondent, before proceeding with further steps.3.In pursuance to the above direction, the learned StandingCounsel for the University has filed a detailed affidavit dated27/11/2012 producing copies of the relevant documents, including the1st respondent's counter affidavit filed earlier, proceedings whereby theRegistry noted the counter affidavit as defective, docket sheets of thecounter affidavit with endorsement, such other documents includingvarious correspondence between the learned Standing Counsel and theVice-Chancellor and also referring to various telephonic instructions. This Court finds that the explanation offered by learned StandingCounsel is satisfactory. 4. In the above circumstances, this Court does not intend toproceed with further steps in the matter. The writ petition is dismissedas infructuous.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENONJUDGEsv. W.P.(C)No.22575/20122