IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2009 / 24TH ASHADHA 1931 WA.No. 1486 of 2009() AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP.4302/1999 dated 17.2.2009 APPELLANT: PETITIONER M.M.IBRAHIM, MANIYATH HOUSE, KARIKULAM, P.O.VELUPADAM, TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENT: RESPONDENTS 1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, STATE OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS (B) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ADMINISTRATION), PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION & ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CHIMONY DAM PROJECT DIVISION, CHIMONY DAM P.O., ALAGAPPANAGAR VIA., TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENNY GERVASIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 1486 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. He approached this Court mainly challenging Ext.P12 order by which he was terminated from service on the ground of unauthorised absence. He also prayed for regularisation of his service with effect from 20.1.1990, on the strength of Ext.P2 Government Order, G.O.(P) No. 6/90 PW & T dated 20.1.1990. The learned Single Judge noticed that regularisation of service as per Ext.P2 was possible, if only the writ petitioner was in service as a CLR worker on or before 19.5.1983 and has a minimum service of 500 days as on 1.4.1987. The learned Single Judge found that no reliable material was produced to show that those two conditions were satisfied in the case of the petitioner. Based on that finding, the Writ Petition was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, this Writ Appeal is filed. W.A. NO. 1486/2009 2 2. Learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. M.P. Krishnan Nair, submitted that the main grievance of the appellant is concerning his termination from service and if only that is set aside, he can claim regularisation. Though that point was specifically urged before the learned Single Judge, that was not dealt with and the appellant is seriously prejudiced, it is submitted. 3. We notice that going by the judgment under appeal, it would appear that no such contention was raised before the learned Single Judge. The statements in the judgment is conclusive proof of what happened before the Court. If anybody is disputing that, the remedy available for the concerned party is to file a review petition before the learned Single Judge and seek modification of the judgment. Since, the validity of Ext.P12 was not considered by the learned Single Judge, we have to presume that the said point was not urged before the learned Single Judge. 4. But, learned counsel for the appellant would assert that the said point, though canvassed, was not dealt with by the learned Single Judge. If that be so, the remedy of the appellant is to move the leaned Judge in review. In view of the said position, the appeal, in which the validity of Ext.P12 is mainly raised, is not maintainable. W.A. NO. 1486/2009 3 In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. But, this will not affect the rights, if any, of the appellant to move the learned Single Judge in review. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ W.A. NO. 1486/2009 4 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. W.A. NO.1486/2009 JUDGMENT 15th July, 2009