IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 900 of 2008()
1. MR.RAVIKUMAR K.P., S/O. PADMANABHAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MANOJ K.C.,
... Respondent
2. BEENO JOSEPH,
3. REJI E.S.,
4. BIPINDAS K.P.,
5. LATHISH BABU R.NATH,
6. RESHMI PRADEEP,
7. DEEPAK B.N.,
8. REKHA P.MATHEW,
9. MANJU ANNIE MATHEW,
10. REJANI P.K.,
11. SWAPNA K.P.,
12. THE KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE
13. THE STATE OF KERALA,
14. THE DIRECTOR,
15. THE MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
16. FAZIL K.S.,
17. ANIL KALAM, S/O. ABDUL KALAM,
18. DHINU CHANDRAN,
19. NEEMA V., D/O.BALAKRISHNAN,
20. BABITH N.K., S/O.NARAYANANKUTTY,
21. PRAJIL V., S/O. VIJAYAN,
22. BIJINA K., D/O. KRISHNANKUTTY,
23. SHILEEJ P.,
24. BIJILA K., D/O. BALAKRISHNAN,
25. PRIYA V., D/O. PREMARAJAN V.,
26. SUDARSAN K.R., S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN,
27. SIJITH E., S/O. NARAYANAN,
28. MR. RATHISH J.BABU,
29. MR. SAJAN S.NAIR,
30. MS.VIJAYALAKSHMI A.,
31. MR. VENUGOPAL S.,
32. MR. SIJU K.C.,
33. JAYAHARI G.,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :15/10/2008
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & ANTONY DOMINIC, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R.P.No.900 of 2008 in W.A.No.730 of 2007,
R.P.No. 901 of 2008 in W.A.No.956 of 2007
& R.P.No.909 of 2008 in W.A.No. 611 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated: 15th October, 2008
ORDER
Antony Dominic,J.
The review petitioners were not parties to W.A.Nos.730/07,
956/07 and 611/07. By the aforesaid judgment, this court allowed
the Writ Appeals and directed the P.S.C. to treat the writ petitioners
eligible to be appointed to the post Vocational Teachers in Printing
Technology, accepting their qualification as one of the alternative
qualifications.
2. The main ground urged by the review petitioners to contend
that the judgment is vitiated due to an error apparent on the face of
it is that the special rules were amended with only prospective effect
from 23.06.2007, incorporating the qualification of Degree of Master
of Applied Science in Publishing Science and Printing Technology,
held by the writ petitioners and therefore the writ petitioners were
not qualified. Though it is seen that what is stated by the petitioners
is factually correct, the fact remains that the petitioners are only
Diploma holders and therefore do not have either degree in Printing
Technology originally prescribed or degree in Master of Applied
R.P.Nos.900/08 ETC. – 2 –
Science in Publishing Science and Printing Technology, incorporated
by the amendment referred to above. If that be so, the petitioners
are admittedly ineligible and therefore they are not going to derive
any benefit by considering the Review Petitions on merits.
3. We are not satisfied that the petitioners have made out a
case to review the judgments. The Review Petitions are therefore
dismissed.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.
srd