IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2011 / 17TH POUSHA 1932 RP.No. 954 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WA.2784/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, PRAJOE TOWERS,VAZHUTHACAUD,TRIVANDRUM-695 014, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 2. DIRECTOR,INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT,TRIVANDRUM. 3. SCREENING COMMITTEE,INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT,TRIVANDRUM-695 014. BY ADV. SHRI M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS,SC,IHRD RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. MUSTAPHA KAMAL,S/O.K.M.MUHAMMED, SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT,MODEL ENGINEERING COLLEGE, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. HARIKUMAR.S.,HEAD CLERK,IHRD, HEAD QUARTERS,PRAJOE TOWERS,TRIVANDRUM-14. 4. DANLEY MATY JOHNSON,HEAD CLERK, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,CHANGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 5. SUJATHA.A.P,HEAD CLERK,TECHNICAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,MUTHUVALLUR,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. kss ..2/- ..2... RP.NO.954/2010 6. ANITHA.D.S,HEAD CLERK,TECHNICAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,ATTINGAL,TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. 7. ASHA.K.PILLAI,HEAD CLERK,COLLEGE OF APPLIED SCIENCE,MAVELIKKARA,KOLLAM DISTRICT. 8. ANITHA KUMAR.P.,HEAD CLERK,TECHNICAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,MUTTADA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 9. SAVEEDA BEEVI.M.M,HEAD CLERK, MODEL ENGINEERING COLLEGE,THRIKKAKKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 10. NANDAN.M.K,HEAD CLERK,TECHNICAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,CHETTUVA,THRISSUR DISTRICT. 11. RAJESH.N.A,HEAD CLERK,MODEL ENGINEERING COLLEGE,THRIKKAKKARA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 12. VINOD KUMAR R., HEAD CLERK, IHRD HEAD QUARTERS, PRAJOE TOWERS, TRIVANDRUM - 14. 13. ROOPESH CHANDRAN NAIR M, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, ATTINGAL, TRIVANDRUM - 14. 14. ABDUL NAZAR T, HEAD CLERK, TECHNICAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VATTAKULAM, MALAPPURAM. 15. KHADEEJA V.S, HEAD CLERK, MODEL ENGINEERING COLLEGE, KAPRASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 16. MAJEED P.K., HEAD CLERK, COLLEGE OF APPLIED SCIENCE, KUTHUPARAMBU, KANNUR DISTRICT. 17. JYOTHILEKSHMI P.P., TECHNICAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KALLANGADI KUNJUMUHAMMED MEMORIAL BUILDING, NEAR PANCHAYAT COMMUNITY HALL, KODUVALLY, CALICUT-673 572. 18. M.G.UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. T.B.REMANI THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. & P.S.GOPINATHAN,J. ---------------------------------------------------------------- R.P.No.954 of 2010 in W.A No. 2784 of 2009 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this 07th day of January, 2011 ORDER Gopinathan, J. The first respondent here in filed the writ petition alleging that the review petitioner had been delaying promotion of the first respondent to the post of Head Clerk inspite of the fact that the first respondent is qualified for promotion. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition. Against that judgment the appeal was filed. We considered the matter in detail and for reasons stated in the judgment the writ appeal was dismissed, against which this review petition was filed. 2. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner. 3. One of the contention raised is that, in view of Appendix XII A of KSR Part I the first respondent shall R.P.No.954 of 2010 in W.A No. 2784 of 2009 2 forgo the seniority in the service as he has availed leave without allowance. That was not an issue in dispute. The entitlement of the first respondent for promotion was the only consideration and it is on finding that the first respondent was entitled to be considered for promotion, and for no good reason, the promotion was withheld, the writ petition as well as the writ appeal was disposed. We find no error in the judgment in appeal to be rectified in review. The review petition is devoid of merit. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. However, we make it clear that the judgment impugned was rendered on the basis of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and it is not a declaration of the selection or promotion process. No costs. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,JUDGE. P.S.GOPINATHAN,JUDGE. rkc