IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2011 / 27TH POUSHA 1932 RP.No. 10 of 2011(C) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.24263/2009 DATED 19/10/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS ---------------------------------------------------- 1. SUJITHA P.K., AGED 32, D/O.P. RAGHAVAN, NEAR M.G.U.P.SCHOOL, KARIVELLUR P.O., PIN-670 521. 2. PRASANTH, AGED 30, S/O.KUNHIKANNAN A., ANJCHIL HOUSE, PATHIKKAL, TURUTHY P.O. KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671 351. 3. SINDHU K.O.V., AGED 37, D/O.KUNHIKANNAN P. HARISHRI, KURUKKOOTTY, P.O.MATHIL PAYYANNUR, PIN – 670 343. 4. GEETHA, AGED 33, D/O.K. KUMARAN, POOMANGALAM P.O., CHERUPARA, THIMIRI, CHAPPARAPPADAVU (VIA), KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN, SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH, SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR, SMT.ANJU P.NAIR. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KASARAGOD. 4. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RP.No. 10 of 2011(C) 5. PREETHA K.V., W/O.HARIDAS, AGED 35 YEARS, KALYANI NILAYAM, ADUTHILA, PAYANGADI P.O. KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN – 670 303. 6. ANITHA P.T., W/O.NANDANAN, AGED 35 YEARS, MANGAT HOUSE, MANADUKKAM P.O.,CHENGALA VIA., KASARAGOD – 671 541. 7. SULEKHA M.P., W/O.SIVADAS, AGED 34 YEARS. MATHRADAN PUTHIRAKKAL, KODAKKAD P.O. THRIKKARIPOOR (VIA), KASARAGOD DIST.-671 357. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.B. JAYASURYA. R4 BY ADV. MR.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, KPSC. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------- R.P.No.10 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 17 th day of January, 2011 ORDER WP(C) No.24263 of 2009 was disposed of by the judgment dated 19.10.2010, along with WP(C) No.10444 of 2010. Following an interim order passed in the Writ Petition, five vacancies were reported. When the Writ Petition came up for hearing, the learned Government Pleader submitted that five vacancies were reported to the Kerala Public Service Commission pursuant to the interim order dated 16.4.2010. It was also submitted by the learned Government Pleader that there was no other vacancy set apart for direct recruitment. In paragraph 2 of the judgment, after referring to the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader, the following sentence occurs: “This submission made by the learned Government Pleader is not disputed by any of the counsel appearing for the parties.” The review petitioner is aggrieved by R.P.No.10 OF 2011 2 this sentence. The counsel for the review petitioner submitted that what was not objected to was the factum of reporting of vacancies and not the availability of number of vacancies. He submitted that even the counter affidavit would disclose that more vacancies were available. All through out the contention of the petitioners was that more vacancies were available. Therefore, the petitioners pray for deleting the sentence after reviewing the judgment. 2. It is also stated by the petitioners that W.A.No.2036 of 2010 was filed by the petitioners, challenging the judgment in the Writ Petition. The Writ Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a Review Petition. Accordingly, this Review Petition is filed. 3. The learned Government Pleader and the Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission pointed out that the ranked list expired R.P.No.10 OF 2011 3 on 30.4.2010 and only five vacancies were reported pursuant to the interim order. Even if the Review Petition is allowed, no material change would occur since vacancies cannot be reported after the expiry of the ranked list. 4. Since the ranked list has expired, the question whether how many vacancies were available before the expiry of the ranked list may not be quite relevant. What is relevant is how many vacancies were reported. It is submitted by the leaned counsel appearing for the additional respondents that the five vacancies were filled up by appointing suitable candidates from the ranked list. However, taking into account the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents and the grievance voiced by the petitioners, it is made clear that the last sentence in paragraph 2 of the judgment was intended only to record the submission made by the learned Government Pleader and that there was no dispute for the parties that the R.P.No.10 OF 2011 4 vacancies were reported. No further orders are required in this Review Petition. The Review Petition is disposed of as above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms