IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2011 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1932 RP.No. 1224 of 2007() ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.13247/2003 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): /PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------------- S. SUSHAMA, DEPUTY LIBRARIAN, STATE CENTRAL LIBRARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PUBLIC LIBRARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE LIBRARIAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PUBLIC LIBRARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. M. AHAMED KUNJU, RETIRED DEPUTY LIBRARIAN, STATE CENTRAL LIBRARY, T.C.45/325, 'ANZAL', ATTAKULANGARA, CHALAI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.SANIL KUMAR R3 BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.1224/2007 in O.P.13247/2003-B = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th day of March, 2011. Order This review petition is filed by the petitioner in O.P.13247 of 2003. That was heard along with O.P.29585/2000. The plea of the petitioner is specifically dealt with in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the judgment making particular reference to the impact of the grant of leave to the rival, namely, the 3rd respondent Ahmed Kunju for foreign service under Appendix XII-A of Part I K.S.R. and the effect of that leave taken by him vis-a-vis Rule 28 or 31(a)(i) of Part II of K.S.& S.S.R. It was specifically found that Ahmed Kunju had not been given a promotion either under Rule 28 or under Rule 31(a)(i) during the period he had been enjoying leave under Appendix XII-A. The application and construction of the relevant statutory rules have been made on the facts disclosed. In that view of the matter, no further RP1224/07 -: 2 :- challenge to the impugned order can be had by recourse to an application for review. Not only that, the petitioner was a respondent in O.P.29585/2000 which was also ordered as per the common judgment making absolute the situation obtained by the order dated 16.11.2000 on C.M.P.54657/2000. Having regard to the intrinsic nature linking all the issues of facts and on law that arose in both the writ petitions which were decided as per the common judgment, an application for review against that judgment only as if it is against the judgment in O.P.13247/2003 cannot be entertained, having regard to the principles of conflict of decisions and constructive res judicata. On merits and otherwise, I do not find any ground to entertain this application for review. This review petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. Sha/2203 -true copy- P.S.to Judge.