Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner initially applied for the post of Binder Grade II on the basis of Ext.P1. Based on Ext.P2 rank list that came to be prepared subsequently, the petitioner is placed at serial No. 8. The grievance of the petitioner is that among the 13 persons that had been appointed from the rank list, in the open category the person who secured 9th position was appointed, thus leaving out the petitioner with a better rank. Contending that she being an open merit candidate, ought to have been appointed in terms of Ext.P4 which came to be prepared on the basis of Rule 14 of General Rules of KS & SSR, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
3. The respondent University filed its counter affidavit placing W.P.(C) No.24730/2014 -2-
on record that in future if any vacancy arises, the petitioner will be the next eligible candidate to be considered for appointment against next open turn (turn 15-OC).
4. In the light of the above averment made by the respondent University, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no issue to be adjudicated upon, provided the respondent University abides by its averment in the counter affidavit.
Accordingly, having regard to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent University, this Court disposes of the writ petition making it clear that the respondent University shall abide by the scheme of appointments it has indicated in paragraph No.10 of the counter affidavit.
sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
rv W.P.(C) No.24730/2014 -3-