IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 264 of 2010()
1. K.K. BABU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDCUATION,
3. THE PRINCIPAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.)
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :20/09/2010
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ.
————————————————————————
RP No.264 of 2010
————————————————————————
Dated 20th September 2010
Order
Bhavadasan, J.
In this Review Petition, the petitioner seeks
review of the Judgment dated 07.12.2009 in WA
No.2687/09, whereby the judgment of the learned single
Judge was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court. The
petitioner was directed to approach the AICTE for
appropriate reliefs.
2. In the RP, it is pointed out that this Court had
omitted to take note of the fact that deputation is treated as
qualifying service and therefore, the petitioner was entitled
to the benefit of the Government Order, relied on by him.
The petitioner has also produced Annexure 2 order,
whereby the Government have accepted the claim of the
petitioner in principle.
RP No.264/10 2
3. The learned Government Pleader appearing
for the State points out that Annexure 2 order produced by
the petitioner shows that the Government have accepted
the relief sought for by the petitioner in principle and have
postponed implementation of the order, awaiting report of
the Director of Technical Education, after assessing
additional financial commitments of the Government.
According to him, there is no final order passed by the
Government, accepting the relief sought for by the
petitioner.
4. A reading of Annexure 2 Government Order
leaves one in no doubt that the Government have accepted
the claim put forward by the petitioner and that he is
entitled to the claim raised in the Writ Petition. The only
impediment in denying the claim of the petitioner, is the
financial implication that may arise while implementing the
order. Accordingly, the Review Petition is allowed and the
claim of the petitioner is upheld to the extent mentioned
RP No.264/10 3
above and subject to the orders that may be subsequently
passed by the Government, regarding the financial
implications and such other matters.
THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE
sta
RP No.264/10 4