IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY THURSDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2011 / 27TH SRAVANA 1933 RP.No. 520 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WA.2315/2009 Dated 19/01/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): IST RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------- SIJIN.N.S, PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER, H.S.MUNDOOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, RESIDING AT SOUPARNIKA, NAMPULLIPURA POST, MUNDOOR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.SREEKANTH S.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): / APPELLANTS 1 TO 3 & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 001. 4. THE MANAGER, HIGH SCHOOL, MUNDOOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 592. 5. A.SIVAN, DRAWING TEACHER, HIGH SCHOOL, MUNDOOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 592. 6. K.V.BRINDA KUMARI, MUSIC TEACHER HIGH SCHOOL, MUNDOOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 592. MS.REMANI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. .................................................................... R.P.No.520 of 2011 in W.A. No.2315 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 18th day of August, 2011. O R D E R Ramachandran Nair, J. This Review Petition is filed to review the common judgment rendered in batch cases, wherein this Court held that under the Rules without the required period Specialist Teachers cannot be retained. This Court even suggested that common Specialist Teachers can be appointed for different schools so that the maximum number of teachers who are relieved from service for want of periods in the schools will be reemployed. The petitioner also is facing retrenchment because the 5th respondent in whose vacancy the petitioner is appointed is restored to the UP School, where he was working from 1979 onwards. The petitioner's appointment is approved and therefore, the petitioner will be reemployed as and when fresh vacancy arises in terms of the Rules. However, we see no ground to review the common judgment, which the Government has decided to implement and additional time R.P.No.520/2011 in W.A.No.2315/2009 2 sought for is also granted. It is for the petitioner to work out relief in terms of the judgment based on which the Scheme is introduced by the Government. This Review Petition is dismissed with the above observations. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JUDGE) jg