Allowed

Beena Shankar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Jun 2015RP/489/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a review petition to correct clerical and factual errors in the original judgment regarding the admission dates and submissions of additional respondents in a promotion dispute.

What did the court decide?

Review petition allowed; paragraph (3) modified to record correct facts regarding respondent submissions and withdrawal; 'Rule 3' substituted by 'Ext.P3' in paragraph (17).

Beena Shankar Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2015) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/20TH JYAISHTA, 1937

¶5

R.P.No.489 of 2015

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21-05-2015 IN WP(C) 28827/2013.

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶8

BEENA SHANKAR, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER IN ENGLISH, NSS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,PANAVALLY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM

¶10

RESPONDENT'S/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

3. P.M.THOMAS,ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶14

4. BALAMONY.R,PRINCIPAL, NSS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MUNDATHICODE,THRISSUR.

¶15

5. SASIKALA.S,PRINCIPAL, NSS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ALAKODE,KANNUR.

¶16

6. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M,PRINCIPAL, NSS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, AKATHETHARA,PALAKKAD.

¶17

7. RENU.S,PRINCIPAL, NSS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KARUKACHAL,KOTTAYAM.

¶18

8. SUVARNAKUMARI.P.S,PRINCIPAL, NSS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THADIYOOR,PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶19

pto

¶20

...2...

¶21

R.P.No.489 of 2015

¶22

9. THE GENERAL MANAGER AND INSPECTOR OF N.S.S.SCHOOLS, PERUNNAI.P.O.,CHANGANACHERRY.

¶23

R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA. R4-R8 BY ADV.SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) R9 BY ADVS.SRI.P.GOPAL

¶24

SRI.B.MURALEEDHARAN

¶25

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.06.2015 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

¶27

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

¶28

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶29

R.P No.489 of 2015

¶30

¶31

W.P(C) No.28827 of 2013

¶32

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10^th day of June, 2015

¶33

ORDER

¶34

This review petition was necessitated on account of some

¶35

factual errors in the judgment of this Court dated 21^st May, 2015.

¶36

During the course of hearing of the writ petition, it was

¶37

submitted by the learned counsel for additional respondents 4 to 8 that the respondents 4 to 8 were seniors to the petitioner going by the

¶38

dates of his admission. However, this submission was withdrawn then and there when the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the 9^th respondent pointed out the correct facts and figures. However, by mistake, in paragraph (13) of the

¶39

judgment, it is stated that the submission was made by the learned counsel for the additional 9^th respondent. There is an omission also

¶40

R.P.489/15inWP(C)28827/13

¶41

-:2:-

¶42

to state that the submission has been withdrawn by the learned

¶43

counsel for respondents 4 to 8.

¶44

Moreover, the submission by the learned counsel for the petitioner that additional respondents 4 to 8 had failed in challenging the promotion at the proper time was also omitted to be stated in the said paragraph. Therefore, paragraph (13) of the judgment requires a modification. In addition to that, a clerical mistake has crept at the opening sentence of paragraph (17). Instead of Ext.P3 is it stated as Rule 3.

¶45

In the result,

¶46

(a)The review petition is allowed.

¶47

(b)Paragraph (3) shall stand modified as under:

¶48

The learned counsel for respondents 4 to 8 would submit that respondents 4 to 8 were seniors to the petitioner going by the dates of appointment. However, when the correct facts and figures were pointed out by the learned counsel for the

¶49

-:3:-

¶50

R.P.489/15inWP(C)28827/13

¶51

petitioner and the learned counsel for the 9^th respondent, the said submission was withdrawn. The learned counsel for the

¶52

petitioner added that respondents 4 to 8 have not challenged the promotion in time.

¶53

(c)The word and number 'Rule 3' in the opening sentence of

¶54

paragraph (17) shall stand substituted by 'Ext.P3'.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶57

krj

Beena Shankar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Beena Shankar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramachandran Vs Madhukuttan

Bhafakhi Thangal Education Charitable Tr Vs State & Others

P.G.Joseph Vs State of Kerala

K.K.Rajendran Vs Kerala State Water Transport Development Corporation

Sameena Vs the Malappuram Muncipality

P.v.Abdulla Haji Vs Nadapuram Grama Panchayat