Judgment dismissing a review petition challenging a writ decision under Article 226 where the High Court found no apparent error in the earlier judgment or any interference required.
Review Petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/17TH JYAISHTA 1934
RP.No. 376 of 2012
[THE JUDGMENT DATED 20/10/2011 IN W.P.(C).NO.6276/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT]
REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C):
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT - 695 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, IDUKKI, THODUPUZHA .P.O.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.T. SHEEBA.
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN W.P.(C):
V.P.SAJITHADEVI, H.S.A. (S.S), GOVERNMENT V.H.S.S. & T.T.I, KUMILY.
BY ADV. SRI. M.V.S BOSE.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P.376/2012-H:
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE I: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) 25/88/P & ARD DTD. 25/06/1988. ANNEXURE 2: COPY OF THE G.O. MS. 417/86/GAD DTD. 28/10/1986.
ANNEXURE 3: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS).391/76/PD DTD. 12/11/76.
ANNEXURE 4: COPY OF THE G.O.(P) 36/91/P & ARD DTD. 02/12/91. ANNEXURE 5: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. AD-B2/2701/HSC/08 DTD. 13/03/2012.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE.
Prv.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
--------------------------------------------------
Review Petition No.376 of 2012 in W.P.(C)No.6276 Of 2011
--------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF JUNE, 2012
ORDER
This Review Petition is filed by the respondents in the Writ Petition seeking to review the judgment in W.P.(C)No.6276/2011, by pointing out that there is an apparent error in the judgment.
In the Review Petition in paragraph No.5, after referring to G.O. (MS)No.25/88/P&ARD dated 25.6.1988 and G.O.(MS)No.417/86/ GAD dated 28.10.1986, it is stated as follows:
“ So the finding of this Honourable Court in Para-5 of
the judgment dated 20.10.2011 that “the petitioner is relying upon a Government order, viz. G.O.(MS) No.25/88/p&ARD dated 25.6.1988 wherein it is mentioned that the inter-district transferees and inter-departmental transferees are not required to undergo fresh probation if they have already completed the probation” is not correct and has to be interfered with.”
R.P.No.376/12 -2-
As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, this Court has allowed the Writ Petition after referring to the relevant Rules of the KS & SSR and there is no specific finding with regard to the above Government Order and the only one sentence in paragraph No.5 of the judgment is that the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon that Government Order. It is well settled that the remedy of review cannot be used for a re-hearing of the entire matter. I do not find any apparent error in the judgment and the Review Petition is dismissed.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR , JUDGE .
dsn
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Review Petition discloses an apparent error in the impugned judgment warranting a review.
State of Kerala, represented by the Secretary to Government, Higher Secondary Education Department
V.P.Sajithadevi
T.R. Ramachandran Nair
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
