IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2008 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 RP.No. 1298 of 2008(C) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.18930/2008 Dated 21/10/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS IN WP(C): ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. PRINCIPAL R.L.V. COLLEGE OF MUSIC AND FINE ARTS, THRIPUNITHURA. 4. THE SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SHRI.A.J.VARGHESE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENT(S) / PETITIONER IN WP(C): --------------- ANTONY.P.K., PANAKKAL HOUSE CHARIYAMTHURUTHU, VARAPPUZHA.P.O. SHRI.P.SREEKUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------- R.P.No.1298 of 2008 in W.P.(C) No.18930 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December, 2008 O R D E R The writ petition was disposed of by the judgment dated 21/10/2008 directing the 2nd respondent to offer appointment to the petitioner as Art Instructor (now re-designated as Junior Lecturer) in implementation of Ext.P2. It has been held in the judgment that at the time of Ext.P2, the petitioner was qualified for the post, and therefore, the change in the qualifications subsequently introduced by the Special Rules, which came into force with effect from 19/03/2008, will not adversely affect the claim of the petitioner. 2. In this review petition, the learned Government Pleader contends that in terms of Ext.P2 Government Order, under which claim has been raised, the petitioner can aspire for appointment subject to his satisfying the qualifications as prescribed. The learned Government Pleader contends that in terms of Ext.P2, the petitioner should satisfy the qualification as prescribed at the time when he is appointed. Therefore, what is contended is that in the R.P.No.1298/2008 -2- absence of processing the qualifications as prescribed in the Special Rules, the petitioner is ineligible to be considered for the post of Art Instructor (Junior Lecturer). 3. In my view this contention does not deserve consideration in a review petition. This Court has already taken the view that the qualification that is relevant in so far as the petitioner is concerned is the qualification as it stood as at the time when Ext.P2 was issued. If that be so, it cannot be contended that there is any error in the judgment warranting review. 4. It is then contended by the learned Government Pleader that by Annexure A1 dated 20/09/2008, it is already decided to appoint the petitioner as a Studio Assistant. That again is not an answer to the claim in the writ petition for the reason that what is contemplated in Ext.P2 Government Order is reappointment and regularization which means, appointment has to be in the post which the petitioner held on a provisional basis. 5. I am not inclined to review the judgment on the grounds as aforesaid. The review petition is, accordingly, rejected. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg