IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2010 / 25TH SRAVANA 1932 RP.No. 682 of 2010(G) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.20646/2008 Dated 08/06/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 6TH RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ P.RADHA DEVI, MUSIC TEACHER, M.N.K.M HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, CHITTILANCHERRY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. THE MANAGER, M.N.K.M.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL CHITTILANCHERRY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. K.GEETHA, MUSIC TEACHER, (HIGH SCHOOL SECTION), M.N.K.M. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, CHITTILANCHERRY,PALAKKAD DIST. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATIONAL DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC ISTRUCTION JAGATHY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14. 5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 6. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 7. THE HEADMASTER, M.N.K.M. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, CHITTILANCHERRY, PALAKKAD DIST. BY SRI DILIP MOHAN GOVERNMENT PLEADER R3 TO R6 SRI. V.A. MUHAMMED R1, R2 SRI. M. CHANDRA BOSE R7 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P. No. 682 of 2010 in W.P. (C) No. 20646 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The 6th respondent in the above captioned Writ Petition is the review petitioner. The review petition has been filed against the judgment dated 8.6.2010 in the above writ petition. As per the same, it was held that the review petitioner would be entitled to statutory protection in terms of Rule 6B of Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules as she was appointed as a music teacher in UP section of MNKM Higher Secondary School on 15.9.1982. It is after considering the rival contentions in the light of relevant provisions and the decision of a division Bench of this Cort in Rani George Vs. Dy. Director of Education reported in(2004(1)KLT 460) that this court rendered the judgment sought to be reviewed. Having gone through grounds A to G raised in this review petition, I am of the view that the petitioner has failed to make out the error that is apparent on the face of the records warranting interference with the judgment dated 8.6.2010, RP No 682/2010. : 2 : under review jurisdiction. They would also reveal that the attempt on the part of the petitioner is to get the judgment rewritten which is not permissible under the review jurisdiction. There is no merit in the review petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge