IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 RP.No. 171 of 2010(M) ------------------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 04/12/2009 IN W.P.(C).NO.25170/2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT) .................... REVIEW PETITIONER: -------------------------------- DR.RADHIKA RANI R.K ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ROGANIDHANA, GOVERNMENT AYURVEDA COLLEGE, KANNUR. BY ADV. MR.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. DR.S.PRIYA ,LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF ROGANIDHANA, GOVERNMENT AYURVEDA COLLEGE, TRIPUNITHURA. 2. DR.SHIJI, LECTURER (ON STUDY LEAVE) DEPARTMENT OF AGADATHANTRA, GOVERNMENT AYURVEDA COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DR.K.AJITHA, LECTURER (ON STUDY LEAVE), DEPARTMENT OF KRIYASAREERA, GOVERNMENT AYURVEDA COLLEGE, TRIPUNITHURA. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE DIRECTOR OF AYURVEDA MEDICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE, REP BY ITS SECRETARY ,INSTITUTIONAL AREA, JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI- 110 058 R.P. NO. 171/2010-M: 7. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, RERPESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. DR.AJIKTHAKUMARI AMMA, LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF KRIYASAREERA GOVERNMENT AYURVEDA COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R4 & R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER, R6 BY MR.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDIA, R7 BY MR. ALEXANDER THOMAS, S.C, P.S.C. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.171/2010 in W.P.(C) No. 25170 of 2009-M - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of March, 2010. O R D E R The fifth respondent in the writ petition is the review petitioner herein. The review petitioner contends that Note (2) to Rule 5 of the Special Rules for the Kerala State Ayurveda Medical Education (Teaching) enables her to claim promotion as Senior Lecturer (Asst. Professor) in the Roganidhan Department Department. It is submitted that in the light of the interpretation placed by this Court in the judgment with regard to Note (5) to Rule 5, there may be an attempt to object to her promotion also. It is further pointed out that Note (2) to Rule 5 and the effect of the same has not been considered by this Court and to that extent there is an apparent error. 2. Heard learned counsel for the review petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner points out that already Writ Appeals are pending against the judgment. Actually the interpretation of Note (2) to Rule 5 was not a matter before this Court for consideration. In that view of the matter, there is no apparent error in the judgment. If the review petitioner is having any rp 171/10 wpc /2010 2 grievance in the matter, the remedy of the review petitioner is to file an appeal against the judgment. Therefore, the review petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/