High Court Kerala High Court

P.M.George vs Joseph Benzy on 13 November, 2008

Kerala High Court
P.M.George vs Joseph Benzy on 13 November, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP.No. 600 of 2000()



1. P.M.GEORGE
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. JOSEPH BENZY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.P.SUDHAKARA PRASAD (SR.)

                For Respondent  :SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :13/11/2008

 O R D E R
              J.B. KOSHY & THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JJ.
            = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
             C.M.P. No.8311 of 2000 in R.P. No. 600 of 2000
                                   AND
                          R.P. No.600 of 2000
            = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
             Dated this the   13th day of November, 2008

                                O R D E R

—————

Koshy, J.

This review petition is filed by the 4th respondent in the

Writ Appeal. He was working along with other appellants in the

KTDC Hotel. A vacancy arose in the post of Commercial

Accountant in the year 1982. At that time he was not qualified

to be promoted as qualified accountant and he was promoted

only in the year 1986. In view of the advertisement in 1982,

direct recruits were appointed and the respondents herein are

the direct recruits. Question was who will be the senior and a

Division Bench of this Court by the judgment sought to be

reviewed found that as far as the petitioner is concerned he

was not qualified when the vacancy arose and direct recruits

were senior to the petitioner, upholding the view of the learned

Single Judge.

2. If the petitioner is aggrieved, he has to file appeal

and review petition cannot be equated to an appeal or a

petition for re-hearing. Hence the review petition is liable to be

C.M.P. No.833/2000 IN R.P. No.600/2000 &
R.P. No.600 of 2000

-: 2 :-

dismissed. We also note that the review petition was filed with a delay

of 41 days in the year 2000. It was not brought before the Court by

taking early steps. The review petition is brought before the court

only now, after retirement of the learned Judges who pronounced the

judgment. No satisfactory explanation is also given in the affidavit in

support of the application to condone the delay.

Hence both the delay petition and the review petition are

dismissed.

J.B. KOSHY, JUDGE.

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.

vsv

J.B. KOSHY &
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JJ.

=========================

C.M.P. NO.8311 OF 2000
IN
R.P. NO.600 OF 2000
AND
R.P. NO.600 OF 2000

ORDER

13TH NOVEMBER, 2008