IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2008 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1930 RP.No. 355 of 2008(L) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.20066/2002 Dated 07/09/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------- C.M. BINDU W/O. RAJEEV, AGED 30 YEARS, (RESIDING AT LAKSHMI NIVAS, KAYALOOR CHAVASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM – 14. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KANNUR. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TELLICHERRY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. THE MANAGER, MATTANNUR HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 6. SMT. NAMBIAR JAYA REVEENDRAN H.S.A. (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) (NOT APPROVED) MATTANNUR HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.T. MAHMOOD SRI. B. UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ C.M.APPL.No.158 OF 2008 & R.P.NO.355 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2008 ORDER The petitioner in the writ petition has filed this review petition with the C.M. application to condone delay in filing the same. By the impugned judgment, I dismissed the original petition holding that in view of Rule 37 of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules the 6th respondent has to be preferred to the petitioner for appointment on the basis of age. 2. The petitioner now seeks review of the same on the ground that since the 6th respondent did not know malayalam, she having been educated outside the State, she was not eligible to be appointed as HSA. Although such a contention was raised in the writ petition, the same was never argued at the time of hearing. In any event, the Government had in Ext.P8 order has specifically referred to the fact that according to the 6th respondent, she is able to teach and speak in malayalam. The petitioner relies on Exts.P11 and P12 judgments, wherein it was C.M.Appl.No.158/08 & R.P.355/08 2 held that knowledge of regional language is necessary. But from Exts.P11 and P12 judgments, I find that those judgments related to a case in respect of appointment to the post of LPSA/UPSA, in respect of which there was a Government order which insisted on knowledge of the regional language for the purpose of appointment. Such a Government order is absent in this case and therefore, Exts.P11 and P12 judgments cannot be relied upon by the petitioner in this case. Further the recruitment rules also do not stipulate any such conditions. Therefore, I do not find any merit in either the petition to condone the delay or the review petition. Both are dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd C.M.Appl.No.158/08 & R.P.355/08 3