IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 1164 of 2010(A)
1. SUMINA RANI.A., W/O.SAIDU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY
3. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.M.K.PRADEEPKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :21/01/2011
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------
R.P.NO. 1164 OF 2010
in
W.P.(C). NO. 13241 OF 2009 A
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2011
O R D E R
The writ petitioner seeks to review the judgment dated
18.10.2010. After the disposal of the W.P.(C) No.13241 of 2009, the
petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.34344 of 2010, in which, the disposal of
W.P.(C) No.13241 of 2009 was not disclosed. It is submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that when W.P.(C) No.34344 of
2010 came up for consideration, learned Standing Counsel for the
Public Service Commission submitted that the said Writ Petition is
barred by the principles of res judicata in view of the disposal of W.P.
(C) No.13241 of 2009. It is further stated in paragraph 11 of the
Review Petition thus:
“11. Whereas, while the W.P.(C)34344/2010
came up for admission Learned Standing Counsel for
the Kerala Public Service Commission pointed out that
W.P.(C) 13241/2009 filed by the petitioner was
dismissed by the judgment dated 18th October, 2010 on
the ground that it had become infructuous and it was
also pointed out that this fact is not mentioned in the
R.P.NO.1164 OF 2010 IN W.P.(C) NO.13241 OF 2009
:: 2 ::
present Writ Petition and it amounts to suppression of
material facts. This situation was embracing to the
petitioner as petitioner was not aware about the disposal
of W.P.(C) 13241/2009 while filing the W.P.(C) 34344/
2010. There was some communication gap between
petitioner and the Learned Counsel who was engaged in
W.P.(C) 13241/2009 was the reason for this as well as
the fact in respect of W.P.(C)1800/2010 that was
pending consideration was not brought to the notice of
this Hon’ble High Court while disposing W.P.(C)13241/
2009 on 18.10.2010.”
2. The reasons stated by the petitioner for reviewing the
judgment are not sufficient. That the petitioner did not disclose the
disposal of W.P.(C) No.13241 of 2009 in a subsequent Writ Petition
filed by her is not a ground for reviewing the judgment in W.P.(C)
No.13241 of 2009.
The Review Petition lacks merit and it is, accordingly,
dismissed.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/