A review petition was dismissed. The High Court found no ground to exercise the power of review, holding that the petitioner could not use the review to re-argue points raised in the main writ petition regarding salary arrears and regularization.
The Review Petition was 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 A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936
RP.No. 823 of 2014 (T) IN WP(C).7752/2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 7752/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER(S):
DR.K.ANWAR, AGED 39 YEARS
S/O.KASIM KUNJU, RESIDING AT MEVARATH VEEDU PERINGALLOOR, AYOOR P.O., KOLLAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.BABU VARGHESE (SR.)
SRI.V.NARAYANA SWAMI
RESPONDENT(S):
MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSINI HILLS ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM-686560.
BY SRI.VARUGHESE M.EASO, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
R.P. No.823 of 2014
in
W.P.(C).No.7752 of 2014 - T
Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2013
ORDER
This Review Petition is filed against the judgment dated 21-08-2014 in W.P.(C).No.7752 of 2014. The Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the University to release the arrears of his salary from November 2013 onwards and for a further direction to the University to regularise the service of the petitioner as Principal of the University College of Teacher Education, (hereinafter referred to as “UCTE”), Nedumkandam. The writ petition was dismissed by this Court on finding that the petitioner's appointment was contractual in nature and for a fixed term and the remuneration that was payable to the petitioner was a consolidated one. It was held, therefore, that his prayer for a pay-scale that was sanctioned in respect of persons who had been regularly appointed as
R.P. No. 823 of 2014
in W.P. (C ) No. 7752 of 2014 - T
2
Principals in the University College of Teacher Education, could not be legally countenanced. The prayer of the petitioner for regularization of his services in the post of Principal was also rejected. In the Review Petition, the petitioner seeks to rely on the assurance, that was given to him by the Vice Chancellor of the University in Annexure - A4 communication produced along with the Review Petition, that he would draw the existing remuneration and benefits that he was already drawing at the UCTE, Nedumkandam where he was functioning as a Lecturer. It is also pointed out that the said communication was subsequently cancelled by Annexure - A5 communication. It is the contention of the petitioner that the assurance given by the Vice Chancellor conferred rights on the petitioner for seeking a parity in pay-scale with persons who were appointed on regular basis in the UCTE.
R.P. No. 823 of 2014
in W.P. (C ) No. 7752 of 2014 - T
review in the instant case. The petitioner has not been able to make out any ground for the same and the points urged by the learned Senior Counsel are essentially the same as those that were considered at the time of hearing the writ petition. The fact that the Review Petition is filed by counsel, different from the one who argued the writ petition, appears to have contributed to the said situation. At any rate, I am of the view that under the guise of a review petition, the petitioner cannot be permitted to re-argue the Writ Petition.
I see no merit in the Review Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
ani/3-12
/true copy/
P.S. to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Review Petitioner can rely on a communication regarding pay-scale parity that was subsequently cancelled.
Whether any grounds warrant the exercise of the power of review after the original writ petition was dismissed on similar grounds.
K.A. Anwar
Mahatma Gandhi University
A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
