IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 3RD ASWINA 1931 RP.No. 907 of 2009(D) -------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENTIN WPC.17477/2009 Dated 14/08/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WP(C): ------------------------------------------------- P.T.SURESH KUMAR, S/O.THANKAYYAN NADAR, AGED 40 YEARS, WORKING AS PEON, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, EXCISE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND RESIDING AT IYRAL SURESH BHAVAN, KALLIYOOR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY MR.N.UNNIKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P(C): ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,TAXES(F)DEPT., GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP.BY THE SECRETARY,PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER,K.P.S.C,DISTRICT OFFICE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY MR. ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, PSC. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- R.P. NO.907 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C) No. 17477 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of September, 2009 O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner. The petitioner, who is working as Peon in the Excise Department applied for appointment by transfer as Excise Guard. His application was rejected after a written test was held on the ground that he was over aged. The writ petition was thereupon filed challenging the said decision and seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Kerala Public Service Commission to consider him for appointment to the post of Excise Guard by transfer. Reliance was placed on Ext.P5 judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in support of the contention that no upper age limit has been fixed for appointment of Excise Guard. By judgment delivered on 14.8.2009, I allowed the writ petition and directed the Kerala Public Service Commission to conduct a physical efficiency test within three months from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of the judgment. R.P. No.907/09 2 2. In this review petition, the petitioner seeks review of the said judgment. He contends that a physical efficiency test is not warranted in the case of appointment by transfer. In my opinion, as this contention was not raised in the writ petition and as the petitioner had no case in the writ petition that he is not required to undergo the physical efficiency test, this review petition is not maintainable. It was open to the petitioner even at the stage when he filed the writ petition to challenge the holding of the physical efficiency test. The petitioner who did not raise such a challenge in the writ petition is in my opinion not entitled to raise such a contention by way of a review petition. The review petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vps