IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 18TH BHADRA 1932 RP.No. 604 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.27296/2002 Dated 27/08/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN OP: -------------------------------------- M.GOVINDAN, U.D.CLERK, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYUR P.O.-680 101, THRISSUR DISTRICT (RESIDING AT KAKKAT HOUSE, ERUMAPETTY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 584. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(/RESPONDENTS IN OP: -------------------------------- 1. THE GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE, GURUVAYUR PO-680 101, REPRESENTED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR. 2. THE ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYUR PO-680 101. 3. SHRI.P.SREENARAYANAN, U.D.CLERK, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYUR PO-680 101. 4. SHRI.C.V.VIJAYAN, U.D.CLERK, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYUR PO-680 101. R1&2 BY ADV. SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR, SC R4 BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K. GOPAL THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... R.P. No.604 of 2010 in O.P. No.27296 of 2002 .................................................................... Dated this the 9th day of September, 2010. ORDER Ramachandran Nair, J. Review is filed nearly after two years from the date of pronouncement of the judgment stating that judgment is misapplied while granting seniority to the review petitioner. After hearing both sides and after going through the judgment, we do not find any mistake therein warranting correction. All what we have held is that those joining the same cadre on the same date will be governed by Regulation 15 which provides for seniority to the elder ones. This position of law does not need any correction. However, we have extracted an averment from O.P. filed by the review petitioner that he joined regular vacancy as L.D. Clerk on 6.1.1988. Senior counsel appearing for him in the Review Petition stated that this is incorrect. However, this claim is disputed by counsel appearing for contesting respondents. We have made only an observation, that too, based on statement by the petitioner about his date of joining service. We make 2 it clear that the same need not be treated as a finding on fact by us. If there is any controversy on this, it could be settled before the concerned authority or before this court. Review Petition is disposed of as above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms