IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2011 / 1ST MAGHA 1932 RP.No. 1164 of 2010(A) JUDGMENT DATED 18.10.2010 IN W.P.(C)NO.13241 OF 2009 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. REVIEW PETITIONER: PETITIONER: -------------------------------- SUMINA RANI.A., W/O.SAIDU, AGED 28 YEARS, MAYILAVILA PUTHENVEEDU, EZHIPURAM, PAMPALLY P.O., QUILON-691574, NOW RESIDES AT THOPPIL VEEDU, VADAKKEVILA P.O., KOLLAM-10. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.PRADEEPKUMAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 3. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS EDUCATION SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, STANDING COUNSEL FOR PSC THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ R.P.NO. 1164 OF 2010 in W.P.(C). NO. 13241 OF 2009 A ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of January, 2011 O R D E R The writ petitioner seeks to review the judgment dated 18.10.2010. After the disposal of the W.P.(C) No.13241 of 2009, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.34344 of 2010, in which, the disposal of W.P.(C) No.13241 of 2009 was not disclosed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when W.P.(C) No.34344 of 2010 came up for consideration, learned Standing Counsel for the Public Service Commission submitted that the said Writ Petition is barred by the principles of res judicata in view of the disposal of W.P. (C) No.13241 of 2009. It is further stated in paragraph 11 of the Review Petition thus: “11. Whereas, while the W.P.(C)34344/2010 came up for admission Learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission pointed out that W.P.(C) 13241/2009 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the judgment dated 18th October, 2010 on the ground that it had become infructuous and it was also pointed out that this fact is not mentioned in the R.P.NO.1164 OF 2010 IN W.P.(C) NO.13241 OF 2009 :: 2 :: present Writ Petition and it amounts to suppression of material facts. This situation was embracing to the petitioner as petitioner was not aware about the disposal of W.P.(C) 13241/2009 while filing the W.P.(C) 34344/ 2010. There was some communication gap between petitioner and the Learned Counsel who was engaged in W.P.(C) 13241/2009 was the reason for this as well as the fact in respect of W.P.(C)1800/2010 that was pending consideration was not brought to the notice of this Hon'ble High Court while disposing W.P.(C)13241/ 2009 on 18.10.2010.” 2. The reasons stated by the petitioner for reviewing the judgment are not sufficient. That the petitioner did not disclose the disposal of W.P.(C) No.13241 of 2009 in a subsequent Writ Petition filed by her is not a ground for reviewing the judgment in W.P.(C) No.13241 of 2009. The Review Petition lacks merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/