IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2009 / 22ND ASWINA 1931 RP.No. 668 of 2009(R) AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.12965/2007 Dated 28/05/2009 REVIEW PETITIONERS: PETITIONER: 1. BIJULAL KUMAR.G., S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, COMPANY PUTHEN VEEDU, KARAVALOOR P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 318. 2. R.HARIDAS, IKARAPULLATTU, KANJIRAPPARA P.O., KANGAZHA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. S.VIJAYA KUMAR, FLAT NO.3/34, RAJEEV NAGAR, MELARANOOR, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SUNIL.T.V., THANNIKKAL HOUSE, ARTHINKAL P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 5. SREEKUMAR.C.K., PULIYARATHALA PANAYAIL VEEDU, IRUMBA, ARUVIKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN RESPONDENTS: 1. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (GENERAL) TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, SC, TDB FOR R1,2 & 3 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P. S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P. 668/2009 IN W.P.(C). NO. 12965/2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009. O R D E R Raman, J. This is a review petition filed by the petitioners inter alia contending that the respondents have filled up the vacancies of LMV Drivers Grade II by giving category change to temple employees without resorting to the selection process. The contention in the writ petition by the respondent was that as a result of the policy change the selection and appointment is left with the Public Service Commission and that too, based on the amended provision of the Act. 2. We have heard both sides. In our judgment, the contention and the right of the petitioners to be appointed pursuant to the selection was considered with reference to the respondents' contention that selection and appointment has been left with the Public Service Commission. We have held that as a result of any change of policy by the Board, if the selection and appointments were left within the purview of the Public Service Commission, unless it is found arbitrary, interference under Article 226 of the Constitution may not be possible. Now it is contended that the vacancies are not filled up by direct recruitment R.P. 668/2009 2 through the PSC, but sought to be filled up by promotion. Whether that is permissible against any accrued right of the petitioners who were selected after undergoing selection procedure as per the norms fixed is a matter which we did not consider or decided either way, because that is a subsequent development after the filing of the writ petition. Therefore, we make it clear that since we have not considered that aspect of the matter, the same is left open and it will be open to the petitioners if they are so advised to seek appropriate remedies in independent proceedings in this regard. The review petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE) KNC/-