IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 312 of 2010()
1. THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF THE FACT
... Petitioner
2. THE FACT EMPLOYEES' CO-OP. HOUSING
Vs
1. JAYASREE T.V., D/O.P.K.UNNIKRISHNAN,
... Respondent
2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP.
3. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES,
4. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.BABY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :29/03/2010
O R D E R
C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ.
--------------------------------------------
R.P. No. 312 OF 2010
in
W. A. No. 303 OF 2010
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010
O R D E R
Ramachandran Nair, J.
Review Petition is filed stating that the finding of the learned
single Judge on the review petitioner’s contention of res judicata based
on Ext.P5 judgment was not considered by Division Bench while
disposing of the appeal. We have heard counsel appearing for the
review petitioner and have gone through Ext.P5 judgment. Even
though this Court did not grant first respondent’s prayer for direction to
appoint her in the existing vacancy, it is seen from Ext.P5 that this
Court allowed the first respondent’s prayer for direction to Joint
Registrar to consider Ext.P4 representation pertaining to irregularities
in the management of the society pointed out by her. Joint Registrar
has in fact considered the application and found that during the validity
of the select list vacancy was there and first respondent being the third
rank holder was entitled to appointment because the second rank holder
2
did not opt for appointment. We feel the learned single Judge has
rightly turned down the review petitioner’s objection on the ground of
res judicata because when this Court issued mandamus to the Joint
Registrar to consider irregularities, it was open to the Joint Registrar to
consider irregularity in appointment as well. When the Joint Registrar
found that a duly selected candidate was not appointed by the society, it
was well within his power to direct the society to appoint the first
respondent. We do not find any merit in the Review Petition.
Consequently Review Petition is dismissed.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge.
(P.S. GOPINATHAN)
Judge.
kk