IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2009 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1931 RP.No. 1043 of 2009(S) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.20313/2009 DATED 20.7.2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER IN WPC -------------------------------------------------- R.RAJENDRAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. N.K.RAMAKRISHNA PANICKER, (DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (NON-CADRE)(RETD.), AGASTHIAVANAM BIOLOGICAL PARK (SIP), FOREST HEADQUARTERS, TRIVANDRUM-14), RESIDING AT 'SARAS', NO.TC 75/142, ANAYARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-29. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN WPC -------------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FOREST & ENVIRONMENT, NEW DELHI. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOREST & WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4. 4. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, SHAJAHAN ROAD, DHOLPUR HOUSE, NEW DELHI, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC FOR R4 SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR R1 GOVT. PLEADER SMT. R.BINDU - R2 & R3 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------ R.P. NO.1043/2009 IN W.P.(C) NO.20313/2009-S ------------------------------ Dated this, the 30th day of October, 2009 Order Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner has filed this Review Petition, seeking review of the judgment, relying on Annexure II judgment of this Court, wherein an officer of the Kerala Forest Service challenged the validity of a minor penalty imposed on him by the disciplinary authority. This Court quashed the order and directed consideration of his claim for appointment to the Indian Forest Service also. In the case of the petitioner, when he was included in the list for promotion, he was facing trial for charges of corruption before the competent criminal court and therefore, the Government did not issue the integrity certificate. Dealing with the above aspect, in para 4 of the judgment under review, we held as follows: “The point to be considered is whether the State Government could have issued the integrity certificate RP 1043/2009 - 2 - when an incumbent was facing trial before a criminal court for corruption charges. In our opinion, we have no doubt that the Government could not have issued integrity certificate for such an officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in the year 2002 he was not facing any trial before the Criminal court. But his efforts to get the integrity certificate issued during the said period did not succeed, in view of the dismissal of OA No.843/02 filed by him. A copy of the order in that Original Application is produced as Annexure A1 along with Ext.P1 Original Application. The point which remains to be considered is whether on acquittal, the petitioner can claim integrity certificate with retrospective effect for the year 1994- 95 or for subsequent years. The relevant rules do not provide for such a procedure. The integrity certificate has to be issued during the relevant year when he is included in the list. If the same is not issued at the relevant time, there is no provision for extension of time. In view of the said position, we find nothing wrong with the decision of the CAT. We fully agree with the reasons and conclusions of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.” 2. We notice that the grounds raised in the Review Petition, especially, the one made relying on Annexure-II is not RP 1043/2009 - 3 - a ground available for reviewing the judgment. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. Having regard to the facts of the case, we have taken a view. If the same is wrong, the remedy of the petitioner is to file an appeal against the judgment under review. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed. K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. C.T.Ravikumar, Judge. nm.