IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 498 of 2008(T)
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.R.SATHEESH CHANDRAN
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.P.I.DAVIS
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :27/05/2008
O R D E R
V.GIRI,J.
-------------------------
R.P No. 498 of 2008
--------------------------
Dated this the 27th May, 2008
O R D E R
The writ petitioner had approached this Court contending
that he was appointed temporary as Peon but thereafter allowed
to continue in service and though discharging the duties of Part
time Sweeper apprehends termination of service. He had also
referred to Exhibit P3 communication issued by the Secretary to
Government to the Director of Higher Secondary Education
informing that one post of Part time Contingent Sweeper has
been created vide Government Order dated 7.6.2008 and
permitted the Director to appoint the petitioner in the post.
Apparently, at the time of hearing of the writ petition, it was
reiterated that the Government had taken a decision to appoint
the petitioner as Part Time Sweeper. Taking note of the above
submission, this Court had disposed of the writ petition noting
that consequential orders by the Director shall also follow
without further delay.
R.P No. 498 of 2008
2
2. Review Petition has now been filed contending that
Government had not taken a decision to appoint the petitioner
as Part time Sweeper. Therefore, there is factual error which
constitutes an error apparent on the face of the judgment.
3. I heard Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Government Pleader.
4. Admittedly, Exhibit P3 does not seem to have been
withdrawn even as on date nor is it the case of the State that
Government order which is referred to in Exhibit P3 has been
withdrawn. Contention taken in the review petition is to the
effect that petitioner was only a Peon working on daily wages
and he was discharging duties as Part time Sweeper at that
point of time and that the Government had not actually taken a
decision to appoint the petitioner.
5. Exhibit P3 shows that referring to a Government
Order dated 7.6.2006 the Director of Higher Secondary
Education was permitted to appoint the petitioner. As long as the
order issued by the Government in Exhibit P3 remains in force,
it cannot be said that there is any error in the judgment as such.
Submission of the learned Government Pleader was only in
R.P No. 498 of 2008
3
consonance with Exhibit P3. I do not find any grounds to review
the judgment. But if there are circumstances which enables the
Government to recall Exhibit P3 or the Government order dated
7.6.2006 which is referred to in Exhibit-P3 then this judgment
will not stand in the way of Government doing so. But this is of
course subject to adequate notice being given to the petitioner
and affording adequate opportunity to the petitioner to resist any
such move, if taken in that regard.
Subject to the above, review petition is dismissed.
(V.GIRI, JUDGE)
ma
R.P No. 498 of 2008
4