P.J.Susannamma vs A.G.Abraham on 12 October, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP.No. 928 of 2010(K)


1. P.J.SUSANNAMMA,HEADMISTRESS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. A.G.ABRAHAM,HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT,
                       ...       Respondent

2. R.SHYAMALAKUMARI,HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT

3. N.SREENATH

4. THE STATE OF KERALA,

5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER,

6. THE MANAGER,

7. ALEYAMMA VARGHESE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JACOB P.ALEX

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR

 Dated :12/10/2010

 O R D E R
                            J. CHELAMESWAR, CJ,
                    P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON &
                              C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
              ..............................................................................
             REVIEW PETITION NO. 928 OF 2010
                                                  &
                              I.A.No.501 OF 2009
               .........................................................................
                     Dated this the 12th October, 2010

                                          O R D E R

C.T. Ravikumar, J.

I.A.No. 501 of 2009:                     Leave is granted.

R.P.No. 928 OF 2010:

Mr. Benny Gervasis, Sr. Government Pleader takes notice for

respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Mr. D. Sreekumar takes notice for

respondent No.3 and Mr. Santhosh Mathew takes notice for

respondent No.6. No contentions have been raised or no reliefs

have been sought for as against respondent Nos.1 and 2 and

therefore, there is no need to issue notice to the said respondents.

2. On consent of the parties we have taken up the Review

Petition for consideration.

3. The Review Petitioner was not a party to W.P.(C)No.12707 of

2005, which was disposed of by the Full Bench as per the judgment

dated 29.07.2009. A scanning of the Review Petition makes it

abundantly clear that the review petitioner has not raised any

challenge or grievance with respect to the law laid down by the Full

REVIEW PETITION NO. 928 OF 2010
2

Bench. In fact, the grievance of the petitioner is against the direction

in the judgment to the manner to effect promotion of the 3rd petitioner

viz., the 3rd respondent as Headmaster of the Mar Thoma High

School, Mekkozhoor on the retirement of the 2nd petitioner therein

viz., the 2nd respondent in the Review Petition. To canvass the point

that the review petitioner has superior claim than the 3rd respondent

herein, the review petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of

this Court in Lalitha v. State of Kerala reported in 2008(1) KLT

416. Evidently and admittedly, the question as to who among the

review petitioner and the 3rd respondent got rightful claim against the

vacancy of Headmaster on the retirement of the 2nd respondent was

not considered in the judgment dated 29.07.2009 and the review

petitioner was not a party to the Writ Petition. Such ‘rightful claim’

could be decided only in a properly instituted proceeding and not in a

Review Petition. The apprehension of the petitioner is that

implementation of the directions in the judgment dated 29.07.2009

would entail her reversion from the post of Headmistress . According

to the review petitioner, during the pendency of the above Writ

Petition, she was promoted as Headmistress on 01.04.2008. Virtually

the review petitioner seeks for a modification or clarification to the

effect that the judgment of the Full Bench dated 29.07.2009 shall not

prejudice her claim for promotion to the post of Headmaster on the

REVIEW PETITION NO. 928 OF 2010
3

retirement of the 2nd respondent. In view of the nature of the direction

in the judgment dated 29.07.2009, the apprehension as also the

contentions of the review petitioner cannot be held as baseless.

4. Evidently, the Full Bench had no occasion to consider the

merits of the contentions of the review petitioner in respect of the

above claim and therefore, it will be open to the review petitioner to

raise her claim before the appropriate authority in appropriate

proceedings and in which event, the judgment dated 29.07.2009 will

not stand in the way of consideration of the said claim of the review

petitioner against the 3rd respondent, viz., the 3rd petitioner in W.P.(C)

No. 12707 of 2005 as against the vacancy of Headmaster of the

school, on the retirement of the 2nd respondent.

With the above observation, this Review Petition is disposed of.

J. CHELAMESWAR,
CHIEF JUSTICE.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.

C.T. RAVIKUMAR,
JUDGE
lk