JUDGMENT : K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. 1. The respondents in W.P.(C) No. 24551 of 2017 are in appeal challenging the judgment dated 11.01.2018 of the learned Single Judge allowing the Writ Petition. The appellants, Cochin University of Science and Technology, its Registrar and the School of Legal Studies are aggrieved by the action of the learned Single Judge in quashing Ext.P10 to the extent it has re-notified the post of Associate Professor in Jurisprudence (Open). The Writ Petition was filed by the respondents alleging that the action of the appellants in re-notifying the post was unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 2. The dispute arose in the following circumstances: As per Ext.P1 dated 17.08.2015, the University had invited applications from qualified candidates for appointment to the post of Associate Professors in various Departments. The post of Associate Professor (Jurisprudence) was one of the posts so notified. In the above context, it is necessary to mention that one of the students of the School of Legal Studies had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 19351 of 2014 alleging that delay in the recruitment of regular teachers to the School of Legal Studies was causing a lot of problems. Therefore, a direction to the appellants to provide alternative arrangements to conduct classes was sought. As per Ext.P2 interim order, a learned Single Judge of this Court directed the appellants to fill up the vacancies of 3 Professors, 5 Associate Professors and 1 Assistant Professor in the School of Legal Studies, before the month of May, 2016. Since the above time limit was not adhered to, this Court by Ext.P3 order directed the appellants to show cause why action in contempt should not be initiated against them for disobedience of the order of this Court. Thereupon, an affidavit was filed on 30.12.2016 assuring this Court that the delay in filling up the vacancies was caused due to the reasons stated therein and that the posts would be filled up without further delay. 3. The Writ Petition from which this appeal arises was filed by the respondent, who was one of the applicants for selection and appointment to the post of Associate Professor (Jurisprudence) (Open) pursuant to Ext.P1 notification. As per Ext.P6 dated 10.04.2017, she had been directed to appear for an interview on 24.05.2017. 3. The Writ Petition from which this appeal arises was filed by the respondent, who was one of the applicants for selection and appointment to the post of Associate Professor (Jurisprudence) (Open) pursuant to Ext.P1 notification. As per Ext.P6 dated 10.04.2017, she had been directed to appear for an interview on 24.05.2017. However, by Ext.P7, she was informed on 09.04.2017 that the interview was postponed and that a fresh date would be intimated later. What followed was the issue of Ext.P10 notification dated 21.06.2017, re-notifying the post. 4. According to the respondent, there was absolutely no justification for re-notifying the post. After the applications of the candidates were considered by a duly constituted Scrutiny Committee, the Selection Committee had directed the respondent to appear for an interview by issuing Ext.P6. The interview was postponed thereafter. Therefore, the allegation of the respondent was that, the reason for issuing Ext.P10 was to facilitate other favoured persons to appear for the interview. 5. The contentions of the respondent were disputed by the appellants. A counter affidavit was filed pointing out that the University was perfectly within its rights in re-notifying the post since sufficient eligible candidates were not available. The re-notification was issued with the object of enlarging the scope of selection and getting the best qualified candidate. It is also contended that the fact of issuance Ext.P10 re-notification was brought to the notice of this Court and time upto 01.11.2017 to complete the selection process was obtained. According to the counter affidavit, applications of only two candidates, including the respondent, were found to be eligible and available for selection to the post. Since the other candidate was an applicant for another post also, according to the appellants, there were no sufficient candidates available for selection to the post. 6. In the Writ Petition, the respondent filed I.A.No.16840 of 2017 seeking the issue of a direction to produce the records or documents on the basis of which the Syndicate had decided to re-notify the vacancy, a copy of the letter dated 18.04.2017 that was stated to have been issued by the Cochin University Employees’ Association and other relevant documents. Accordingly, such documents were produced. The learned Single Judge considered the respective contentions and found that there was absolutely no justification for the decision of the Syndicate to re-notify the post and that Ext.P10 was issued on the basis of extraneous consideration. Accordingly, such documents were produced. The learned Single Judge considered the respective contentions and found that there was absolutely no justification for the decision of the Syndicate to re-notify the post and that Ext.P10 was issued on the basis of extraneous consideration. Therefore, Ext.P10 has been quashed to the extent it has re-notified the post of Associate Professor in Jurisprudence (Open). The appellants have been directed to proceed with the interview within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The aggrieved appellants are in appeal. 7. According to the Standing Counsel for the University, Sri. S.P. Aravindakshan Pillay, the respondent is the only candidate, who has applied for the post in question and therefore, her contention that she should be appointed should not be sustained. It is contended that certain other posts were also ordered to be re-notified by the Syndicate and on the basis of the said decision, when such posts were re-notified, there has been response from other candidates and the selection has also been completed. For this one post alone, the selection could not be conducted for the reason that all further proceedings were stayed by this Court. According to the learned counsel, though the respondent had applied for being selected to the post of Professor, she had not been found suitable for the said post. For the said reason also, it is contended that she has no right to claim selection to the notified post. 8. Adv. Santhosh Mathew appears for the respondent. According to the counsel, the learned Single Judge has gone into the question as to whether there was any justification for the decision of the Syndicate to re-notify the post after the process of selection had progressed to the stage of scheduling an interview and inviting the candidates for the same. It was finding that there were no materials available to justify the said decision that, Ext.P10 was interfered with. According to the learned counsel, this Court had directed the selection process to be completed before May, 2016. The University had assured this Court on affidavit that the process would be completed and that all necessary steps were in progress. It was contrary to the said assertion that the post was re-notified as per Ext.P10. According to the learned counsel, this Court had directed the selection process to be completed before May, 2016. The University had assured this Court on affidavit that the process would be completed and that all necessary steps were in progress. It was contrary to the said assertion that the post was re-notified as per Ext.P10. According to the learned Counsel, the entire action was tainted and has been rightly interfered with by the learned Single Judge. 9. Heard. This Writ Appeal comes up before us for admission. It is not in dispute that the appellants had proceeded substantially with the process of selection pursuant to Ext.P1 notification that was issued as early as on 17.08.2015. A perusal of Ext.P1 shows that a number of posts were notified therein. The Scrutiny Committee had admittedly scrutinised the applications and the respondent had also been called for an interview that was scheduled on 25.04.2017. It was after the issue of Ext.P6 on 10.04.2017 that the decision to re-notify the post was taken by the Syndicate on 22.04.2017. We notice that the said decision was taken by the Syndicate as an ‘out of the agenda’ item. We have also perused Ext.R2(a), which is the copy of the complaint dated 18.04.2017 submitted by the Cochin University Employees’ Association. In the first place, we do not find any relevance for the complaint of the Employees’ Association, an organisation that has nothing to do with the selection of Associate Professors to the University. Secondly, the allegation is against another person who is stated to have been an applicant to the post of Professor to the School of Legal Studies. However, the demand of Employees Association was to scrap the Scrutiny Committee that was constituted for the reason that some unsubstantiated allegations have been made therein. We find no material to support them. We also do not find that the Syndicate had any other material before them to take the decision to re-notify the post, especially after the selection process had progressed substantially. The present contention that there were no sufficient candidates for the post is hollow. Had the reason been genuine, the selection process would not have been pursued by the appellants right upto the stage of holding an interview for which, the candidates were directed to appear. The present contention that there were no sufficient candidates for the post is hollow. Had the reason been genuine, the selection process would not have been pursued by the appellants right upto the stage of holding an interview for which, the candidates were directed to appear. In view of the above, the learned Single Judge cannot be found fault with for having proceeded to presume that the decision was vitiated by some other extraneous consideration. What the learned Single Judge has directed is only to proceed with the process of selection and to complete the interview. No direction to select the respondent or any other person has been issued. We are not satisfied that the appellants are prejudiced by the direction in any manner. We do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned Single Judge warranting an interference by this Court in appeal. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The learned Standing Counsel points out that the time granted by the learned Single Judge to complete the selection process has already expired. In view of the above, the said time limit is extended by a period of two months from today.