High Court Kerala High Court

V.Raghunathan vs V.Sarala on 4 July, 2007

Kerala High Court
V.Raghunathan vs V.Sarala on 4 July, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP No. 473 of 2007()


1. V.RAGHUNATHAN, SECRETARY,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. V.SARALA, CHIEF ACCOUNTANT,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE ARYANADU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE

3. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS,

4. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

5. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE

6. THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :04/07/2007

 O R D E R
                P.R.RAMAN & ANTONY DOMINIC JJ.

              --------------------------------

                        R.P.NO.473 OF 2007 IN

                              W.A.NO.556 OF 2007

              --------------------------------

           Dated this the 4th day of July, 2007



                                   O R D E R

Raman,J.

This is a petition seeking review of the judgment in

W.A.No.556/2007. The specific contention now raised in the review

petition is that under Rule 186(1)(A) of the Kerala Co-operative

Societies Rules, B.A. degree holder in Sanskrit, Islamic History,

Politics or such other B.A. Degree, which has no nexus with

Commerce or Banking is eligible to be treated as qualified, provided

he possessed J.D.C. So the petitioner being possessed M.Com. Degree

mainly deals with Commerce and Co-operative Banking and having

possessed J.D.C. cannot be treated as not qualified person. First of all

this contention as is raised now was not raised neither before the

learned Single nor in the appeal. Further, the remedy of a review is

not for re-hearing of the matter.

2. We have considered the relevant provision and also the

qualification possessed by the petitioner and decided the case. Hence,

if at all the contention is that interpretation placed on the section is not

-2-

R.P.NO.473/2007

correct, the remedy is to file an appeal and not a review petition. We find

no error apparent on the face of the record.

Review Petition is dismissed.

P.R. RAMAN,

Judge.

ANTONY DOMINIC,

Judge.

kcv.