IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 29TH BHADRA 1932 RP.No. 264 of 2010 () -------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.2687/2009) .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT -------------------------------------------------- K.K. BABU, KRISHNA KALYANI, AISWARYA COLONY, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD - 678 002. BY ADVS. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.DEEPAK SMT.APARNA RAJAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDCUATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, NSS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, PALAKKAD - 678 008. R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ RP No.264 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated 20th September 2010 Order Bhavadasan, J. In this Review Petition, the petitioner seeks review of the Judgment dated 07.12.2009 in WA No.2687/09, whereby the judgment of the learned single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court. The petitioner was directed to approach the AICTE for appropriate reliefs. 2. In the RP, it is pointed out that this Court had omitted to take note of the fact that deputation is treated as qualifying service and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the Government Order, relied on by him. The petitioner has also produced Annexure 2 order, whereby the Government have accepted the claim of the petitioner in principle. RP No.264/10 2 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the State points out that Annexure 2 order produced by the petitioner shows that the Government have accepted the relief sought for by the petitioner in principle and have postponed implementation of the order, awaiting report of the Director of Technical Education, after assessing additional financial commitments of the Government. According to him, there is no final order passed by the Government, accepting the relief sought for by the petitioner. 4. A reading of Annexure 2 Government Order leaves one in no doubt that the Government have accepted the claim put forward by the petitioner and that he is entitled to the claim raised in the Writ Petition. The only impediment in denying the claim of the petitioner, is the financial implication that may arise while implementing the order. Accordingly, the Review Petition is allowed and the claim of the petitioner is upheld to the extent mentioned RP No.264/10 3 above and subject to the orders that may be subsequently passed by the Government, regarding the financial implications and such other matters. THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta RP No.264/10 4