IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2009 / 20TH SRAVANA 1931 RP.No. 765 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.2165/2005 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/ APPELLANTS -------------------------------- 1. JOSHY JOSE,S/O.JOSE, ASSISTANT TEACHER, KARIPPAL S.V.U.P.SCHOOL, KARIPPAL P.O.,CHAPPARAPADAVU,KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE MANAGER, KARIPPAL S.V.U.P.SCHOOL,KARIPPAL P.O., CHAPPARAPADAVU,KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TALIPARAMBA NORTH. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANNUR. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER, SRI.BENNY GERVASIS. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------ R.P.No.765 of 2009 in W.A. No.2165 of 2005 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 11th day of August, 2009 ORDER Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellants are the review petitioners. During the academic year 1997-98, three U.P.S.As. became excess. Two of them were accommodated by lowering the teacher - student ratio from 1 : 45 to 1 : 40. The review petitioner No.1 was thrown out. Later he was appointed in three spells of leave vacancies which arose during the said academic year. Exts.P1 to P3 were the appointment orders. But those appointments were not approved by the statutory authorities. Challenging the said orders of the statutory authorities, the writ petition was filed. The Government resisted the prayers in the writ petition pointing out that even if a leave vacancy arose the same should be filled up by accommodating the senior among the two teachers who were allowed to continue in the school by applying the ratio of 1 : 40 and a retrenched hand like the review petitioner No.1 could not be R.P.No.765 of 2009 - 2 - accommodated. The said contention was upheld by this court and the writ petition and the writ appeal were dismissed. 2. Now a review is attempted pointing out that there was a leave vacancy in the school from 15.6.1997 to 12.9.1997. The review petitioner No.1 was accommodated in that leave vacancy by Ext.P1 from 15.7.1997. Even if the said vacancy arose from 15.6.1997, it does not make any difference. Even if there is yet another vacancy other than the vacancy in which the review petitioner No.1 was appointed, the same will go to the second U.P.S.A. who was accommodated by applying the ratio of 1 : 40. This review petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly it is dismissed. Sd/- K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. Sd/- C.T. Ravikumar, Judge. DK. (TRUE COPY)