T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.@mdashThe Petitioner is working as High School Assistant (Physical Science) in the Government Higher Secondary
School, Madikai. According to the Petitioner, he is having the prescribed qualification for the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher in
Computer Science. The Petitioner had acquired M Sc Computer Science through distance education from the Annamalai University.
2. The prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the Respondent to allow Ext.P3 and extend time to produce equivalency certificate as directed
in Ext.P1.
3. Ext.P1 is the draft state wise seniority list of qualified departmental teachers for appointment by transfer to the post of HSST. The Petitioner''s
name is included as No. 1 in the said list and against his name, the Respondent has directed to produce the equivalency certificate and P.G. Mark
list.
4. It is the case of the Petitioner that even though he approached the Kannur University, so far the equivalency certificate has not been issued and it
is in these circumstances, the Petitioner has filed this writ petition. The Kannur University has been impleaded as additional 2nd Respondent.
5. Learned Standing Counsel for the University submitted that the Petitioner had filed an earlier writ petition namely, W.P.(C) No. 38617/2010.
By Ext.P3 communication produced therein, the University had directed the Petitioner to produce a certificate from the Annamalai University to the
effect that the contact programme and the examination of the course pursued by him was conducted within the territorial jurisdiction of the
University, as per the rules of Distance Education Council/UGC, along with the scheme and syllabus of the Lateral Entry Course, duly attested by
the Registrar of the said University. This was under challenge in the above writ petition. This Court found that there is no merit in the challenge
against Ext.P3. It was made clear in the judgment that it will be open to the Petitioner to produce the certificate mentioned in Ext.P3 and that, on
production of the same, the 1st Respondent University will consider the application made by the Petitioner for equivalency certificate and pass
orders thereon without any further delay.
6. It is the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the University that thereafter the Petitioner has not produced any certificate as directed
by this Court and therefore, the University is unable to take any action on his application.
7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there is no improvement in the situation and the Petitioner could not procure any certificate.
Learned Government Pleader submitted that the list has already been finalised during the pendency of the writ petition on 21.12.2010.
In that view of the matter, this Court will not be justified in granting further period of extension of time to the Petitioner. If the Petitioner is able to
procure the certificate, he can produce it before the University for appropriate action for getting any benefit on a future occasion.
With the above observation, this writ petition is dismissed.