IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 946 of 2010()
1. K.M.NISHA,W/O.K.B.SYALADASAN,AGED 25 YRS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE MANAGER,KARSHAKA SAMAJAM UPPER
... Respondent
2. SMT.P.A.BINDU,PALLATH HOUSE,
3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
5. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
6. SMT.M.K.SUNAJA,UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL
7. SMT.V.R.SREEREKHA,UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL
8. SMT.REKHA.M.C,LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL
For Petitioner :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :15/10/2010
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.
....................................................................
R.P. No.946 of 2010 in
Writ Appeal No.2791 of 2009
....................................................................
Dated this the 15th day of October, 2010.
ORDER
Gopinathan, J.
Review petitioner, a third party to the judgment, would contend
that she got appointment on 1.6.2009 in the school managed by the first
respondent and because of the judgment dated 20.8.2010 in Writ
Appeal No.2791/2009, second respondent would get notional seniority
over the review petitioner and that the relief was granted without
hearing the review petitioner. With this plea she sought for review of
the judgment. We heard learned counsel appearing for the review
petitioner and perused the impugned judgment.
2. We see that by Ext.P5 judgment in W.P.(C) No.11172/2008
dated 19.12.2008 this court directed the first respondent to appoint the
second respondent, a claimant under Rule 51B of Chapter XIV A,
K.E.R., in pursuance of Ext.P4 order dated 22.10.2007 produced
therein issued by the District Educational Officer. Thereafter the first
R.P. 946/2010 2
respondent moved a Review Petition before the learned Single Judge
and then a revision before the Government. The revision was
dismissed by Ext.P7 order. Assailing Ext.P7, the first respondent filed
W.P.(C) No.21384/2009. The W.P.(C) was dismissed by judgment
dated 12.11.2009 against which Writ Appeal was filed. The review
petitioner was appointed on 1.6.2009 by the first respondent ignoring
the direction contained in Ext.P5 judgment dated 19.12.2008. While
dismissing W.A. No.2791/2009, the first respondent was directed to
enforce Ext.P5 judgment and to give notional seniority to the second
respondent. The review petitioner who obtained an order of
appointment from the first respondent subsequent to Ext.P5 is not
entitled to claim seniority over the second respondent. The order of
appointment of the review petitioner made by the first respondent
ignoring the writ issued by this court in Ext.P5 judgment would not
enure any service benefit or entitlement to the review petitioner as
against the second respondent. Since the so called appointment of the
review petitioner was subsequent to the writ issued by this court in
Ext.P5, there is no merit in the contention that she was not given a right
R.P. 946/2010 3
of audience. The Review Petition is devoid of any merit. Accordingly
it is dismissed. No costs.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge
P.S.GOPINATHAN
Judge
pms