IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2008 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1929 RP.No. 1120 of 2007(W) AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.3553/2005 Dated 01/01/2007 REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER: V.K. RAMA WARRIER, VADAKKEDATHU WARRIAM (SREELAKSHMI) VEEDU, VAKATHANAM P.O., MANIKANTAPURAM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. DR.K.P.KYLASANATHA PILLAY SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/RESPONDNTS: 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,DEVASWOM DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM HEAD OFFICE NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THRIKARIYOOR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & V. K. MOHANAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P. NO. 1120/2007 IN WP(C) 3553/2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2008. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. Petitioner seeks to review the judgment in W.P.(C) 3553/2005. That was a writ petition filed by the revision petitioner herein. The prayer in the writ petition was for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to Exts.P4, P8, P17 & P19 and quash the same and to direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner to service in the light of Ext.P15. Therefore, it was a case where the petitioner was dismissed from service by the second respondent Travancore Devaswom Board as per Ext.P8 order and it was challenging the said order, that the writ petition was filed. The said writ petition was disposed of following the order passed in W.P.(C) 20492/2004 It was stated that obviously, if the representation - Ext.P1 in that writ petition is dismissed, petitioner's claim to get reinstatement would be considered in accordance with law. 2. W.P.(C) 20492/2004 was filed by one Krishna Kumar. The matter related to appointment of Karanma Kazhakam. The prayer in the writ petition was to quash Ext. P3 and P4 produced in that case and further for a RP 1120/07 IN WP(C) 3553/05 :2: declaration that the third respondent in that writ petition who was dismissed from service is not entitled to get reinstatement in any post under the first respondent. The said third respondent is evidently, the petitioner in WP(C) 3553/2005 (the revision petitioner herein). Since a representation was made by Krishna Kumar and since the claim raised by him in the representation was directed to be considered, this Court held that in case his representation is dismissed, the claim of the petitioner in the present writ petition for reinstatement should be considered in accordance with law. Obviously, therefore, there were two rival claimants as regards the Karanma right is concerned. Therefore, to the extent Karanma right is concerned, we find there is no ground to review the matter. 3. But according to the petitioner, besides Karanma right, since he was holding the post of Sub Group Officer, whose services were terminated by taking disciplinary action, this has nothing to do with the Karanma right of Krishna Kumar. However, the dismissal of the petitioner's services as a Sub Group Officer was not independently or directly considered. Learned counsel would clarify that the petitioner was not dismissed on the basis of conviction, but only it was in the disciplinary action that he was dismissed from service. However, subsequently he was acquitted and petitioner takes this acquittal as a ground for reinstatement. RP 1120/07 IN WP(C) 3553/05 :3: 4. But the learned standing counsel appearing for the Travancore Devaswom Board would submit that it was not an automatic termination of service of the petitioner following a criminal complaint, but it was in a domestic enquiry that his services were terminated and therefore merely because he is acquitted, that by itself is not a ground for reinstatement. Therefore, the question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated having not been gone into in the order passed by the Division Bench, we allow this review. The writ petition is restored to file. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) V. K. MOHANAN, (JUDGE) knc/-