IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2009 / 6TH BHADRA 1931 RP.No. 579 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENTIN WA.952/2008 Dated 19/03/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------- SADASIVAN K.M, S/O. SREEDHARAN NAMBISAN, NADAM KODAKKAD VALIYAPOIL P.O. OLAT, KASARGOD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, KASARAGOD. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, PSC. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------- R.P.No.579 OF 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of August, 2009 O R D E R ~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The review petitioner was an applicant for the post of Driver in Kasargod District, when the PSC invited applications for appointment to the said post by transfer. He was working as a part-time contingent employee at the relevant time in the Government L.P.School, Kalanad Old, Kalanad P.O., Kasargod District. But, in that post he was only a probationer. Only an approved probationer in the feeder category alone can seek appointment by transfer. So, his application was rejected by the PSC. Therefore, the Writ Petition was filed challenging the said action of the PSC. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. The appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench noticing that the claim of the appellant is covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.No.240/2009. Seeking review of that judgment, this Review Petition is filed. In the Review Petition, it is stated that a probationer is also R.P.No.579/20009 2 eligible for appointment by transfer. The said contention is plainly untenable. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) ps