Dismissed

M.Peer Mohammad v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Nov 2012RP/563/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this review petition, the petitioner sought revision of a judgment allowing eligibility for reservation under Rule 187 despite leaving service. The court observed some force in the contrary submission regarding Rule 187's objective but ultimately dismissed the review citing limited review jurisdiction and refusal to consider subsequent case law.

What did the court decide?

The review petition is failed and stands dismissed.

M.Peer Mohammad Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE &

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

¶5

MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/14TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶6

RP.No. 563 of 2012 IN W.A.1756/2010

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WA.1756/2010 DATED 11-10-2010

¶8

REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶9

¶10

M.PEER MOHAMMAD, AGED 52 YEARS S/O.MOIDEEN KHAN RESIDING AT T.C.NO.35/419. J.M.R.R.A. JUMA MASJID ROAD, VALLAKADAVU P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI

¶12

SRI.P.M.JOSEPH

¶13

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶14

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶15

GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDURM-695001.

¶16

THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETAY, PATTOM TRIVANDRUM-695001.

¶17

THE DEPUTY SECRETARY (J) EXAMINATION WING, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TRIVANDRUM-695001.

¶18

THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) TALUK CO-OPOERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695008

¶19

THE TRIVANDRUM PORT AND HEAD LOAD WORKERS LABOUR CONTRACT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.4245 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, VALLAKADAVU TRIVANDRUM-695008.

¶20

BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC

¶21

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &

¶23

BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.

¶24

R. P. No.563 of 2012 in W.A No.1756 of 2010

¶25

Dated this the 5^th day of November, 2012

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Pius C. Kuriakose, J

¶28

The petitioner seeks review of this Court's judgment in W.A No.1756/2010 dated 11/10/10 mainly on the basis of the observations in the last paragraph of the judgment of this Court in W.P.C No.25127/10 in Shibi v. State of Kerala (2010

¶29

(3) KHC 774). Sri.Ramaswamy Pillai, the learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that the petitioner left the services of the society only on 31/08/09. There was inordinate delay on the part of the PSC in publishing the result of the examination. Had it not been for that delay, the petitioner would have been eligible for appointment in the quota reserved for employees of member society under Rule

¶30

Counsel therefore requested that the judgment be

¶31

R. P. No.563 of 2012

¶32

-2-

¶33

reviewed to the limited extent of observing that if there are vacancies in this particular quota, the petitioner's case also be considered.

¶34

We have heard Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC also. Sri.Sasidharan submitted that the objective which underlies the provision for reservation under Rule 187 is that the benefit should be given to those who continued in the service of the society concerned and not to those who left the service of the society.

¶35

We find some force in the submission of Sri.Sasidharan. Even otherwise, we do not think that the ground urged based on the observations of this Court in a subsequent judgment can be a ground for review in view of the well delineated contours of this Court's jurisdiction for reviewing its own judgments and orders. R.P fails and the

¶36

-3-

¶37

R. P. No.563 of 2012

¶38

same will stand dismissed.

¶39

Sd/PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE

¶40

Sd/BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH JUDGE

¶41

kns/-

¶42

//TRUE COPY//

¶43

P.A. TO JUDGE

M.Peer Mohammad v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Peer Mohammad v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sathyanadhan Vs Praseetha Kumari

Sudhani, D/O.Kochuvava Vs Shalini M.P.

Sreekala Vs Rajesh

S.B.Sunil Kumar Vs B.Raji

Rejith R.G. Vs Rejitha N.R.

R. Sivadasan Nair Vs the Secretary to Government