IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 RP.No. 827 of 2009(S) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.8490/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ADDITIONAL FOURTH RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ LBS CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR, NANDAVANAM, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SRI.LEO GEORGE SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR SRI.K.N.SASIDHARAN NAIR SMT.SANDHYA RADHAKRISHNAN SMT.M.SRUTHY RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. THE KERALA UNAIDED B.ED COLLEGE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, REG.NO.ER 821/05, MATTUPURAM, MANNAM P.O., NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, RPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY VENDAR G.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTORATE OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. DILIP MOHAN ADV. MR. GEORGE POONTHOTHAM THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:S S. SIRI JAGAN, J ...................................................... Review Petition No. 827 of 2009 ...................................................... Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009 O R D E R The additional 4th respondent in the writ petition is the petitioner in the review petition. They seek review of my judgment dated 10.7.2009 which reads as follows: The petitioner claims to be a registered Association of unaided B.Ed. College Managements. They have filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to ensure the commencement of academic year and the starting of classes for the B.Ed. course as provided in the University statute. ii) Issue a writ declaring that the respondents are duty bound to adhere the schedule of the University statutes in commending the classes and direct the respondents to take steps for commencement of the classes as provided in the statute of the Universities.” 2. The selection process is entrusted with the additional 4th respondent. The additional 4th respondent submits that for this year, allotment process would be completed by 7.9.2009 and thereafter further classes can be started by the appropriate institutions within a week or so thereafter. Of course, the learned counsel points out that their responsibility ends with completing the allotment process and starting classes is to be decided by the respondents 1 and 2. In view of the above submission, I record the said statement and close this writ petition. 2. The contention now raised is that the submission made by the 4th respondent was in view of the circumstances obtaining as on Review Petition No. 827 of 2009 -2- that date as per which the Government have directed the petitioner in the review petition to complete the allotment process by 7.9.2009. But subsequently, in view of the natural calamities in the state, the Government decided to give further time for intending candidates for submitting applications for admission and consequently the dates have been changed. Now the Government has directed the petitioner in the review petition to complete the allotment process by 19.9.2009, in view of the fact that the last date for submission of applications for B.Ed course was extended upto 31.7.2009. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner also, who opposes the review petition. 4. However, in view of the peculiar circumstances, I am inclined to review the judgment in so far as the allotment process was to be completed by 7.9.2009. Accordingly the date 7.9.2009 would stand modified as 19.9.2009. Except for the said change, all other directions in the judgment would stand. The review petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs