IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2010 / 4TH SRAVANA 1932 RP.No. 614 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER DATED 21/05/2010 IN WPC.13821/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 5TH RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ TESSY MATHAI, RESIDING AT KATTUVILA VEEDU, EDANADU POST, KARAMKODE, CHATHANOOR, KOLLAM-691579. BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO4 ----------------------------------------------- 1. BINI.N.S., STAFF NURSE GRADE-II, (PROVISIONAL) ESI DISPENSARY, KILIKOLLOOR KOLLM (NOW EMPLOYED AT ESI DISPENSARY, KERALAPURAM KOLLAM - 691 579). 2. THE DIRECTOR, INSURANCE MEDICAL SERVICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 6 95001. 3. REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, INSURANCE MEDICAL SERVICE, SOUTH ZONE, POLAYATHODE, KOLLAM. 4. INSURANCE MEDICAL OFFICER, E.S.I. DISPENSARY, KILIKOOLOR, KOLLAM. 5. THE DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, KOLLAM. MR.ANTONY MUKKATH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- R.P.No.614 of 2010 in W.P.(C.) No.13821 of 2010 (C) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 26th day of July, 2010 O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 to 5. 2. By judgment dated 21/05/2010, WP(C) No.13821/2010 was disposed of, taking note of the fact that both the review petitioner and the 1st respondent were appointed on the same day and treating the 5th respondent as senior to the petitioner going by her position in Ext.P2 order. On that basis, it was held that the 5th respondent has to vacate the post on a regular hand joining duty. 3. In this review petition filed by the 5th respondent in the writ petition, referring to Annexure A2 & A3, it is stated that the writ petitioner has more length of temporary service and therefore the writ petitioner has to vacate the post. Admittedly, the judgment was rendered without considering R.P.No.614/2010 -2- the impact of Annexures A2 & A3 and since the review petitioner had not entered appearance, her contentions were not dealt with. In the light of Annexures A2 & A3, I am satisfied that the judgment is vitiated for error and for that reason, I recall judgment dated 21/05/2010 in WP(C) No.13821/2010. This review petition is accordingly allowed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg