IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2010 / 20TH ASWINA 1932 RP.No. 928 of 2010(K) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.12707/2005 Dated 29/07/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/ 3RD PARTY ------------------------------- P.J.SUSANNAMMA,HEADMISTRESS, MAR THOMA HIGH SCHOOL,MEKKOZHOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB P.ALEX SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT & RESPONDENTS IN WPC. ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. A.G.ABRAHAM,HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT, MARTHOMA HIGH SCHOOL,MEKKOZHOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, 2. R.SHYAMALAKUMARI,HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT MARTHOMA HIGH SCHOOL,MEKKOZHOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, 3. N.SREENATH, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT MARTHOMA HIGH SCHOOL,MEKKOZHOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA. 6. THE MANAGER, MARTHOMA HIGH SCHOOL,MEKKOZHOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, 7. ALEYAMMA VARGHESE, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT MARTHOMA HIGH SCHOOL,MEKKOZHOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, R3 BY ADV. SHRI D. SREEKUMAR R4 AND R5 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI BENNY GERVASIS R6 BY ADV. SHRI SANTHOSH MATHEW. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, CJ, P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. .............................................................................. REVIEW PETITION NO. 928 OF 2010 & I.A.No.501 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 12th October, 2010 O R D E R C.T. Ravikumar, J. I.A.No. 501 of 2009: Leave is granted. R.P.No. 928 OF 2010: Mr. Benny Gervasis, Sr. Government Pleader takes notice for respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Mr. D. Sreekumar takes notice for respondent No.3 and Mr. Santhosh Mathew takes notice for respondent No.6. No contentions have been raised or no reliefs have been sought for as against respondent Nos.1 and 2 and therefore, there is no need to issue notice to the said respondents. 2. On consent of the parties we have taken up the Review Petition for consideration. 3. The Review Petitioner was not a party to W.P.(C)No.12707 of 2005, which was disposed of by the Full Bench as per the judgment dated 29.07.2009. A scanning of the Review Petition makes it abundantly clear that the review petitioner has not raised any challenge or grievance with respect to the law laid down by the Full REVIEW PETITION NO. 928 OF 2010 2 Bench. In fact, the grievance of the petitioner is against the direction in the judgment to the manner to effect promotion of the 3rd petitioner viz., the 3rd respondent as Headmaster of the Mar Thoma High School, Mekkozhoor on the retirement of the 2nd petitioner therein viz., the 2nd respondent in the Review Petition. To canvass the point that the review petitioner has superior claim than the 3rd respondent herein, the review petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Lalitha v. State of Kerala reported in 2008(1) KLT 416. Evidently and admittedly, the question as to who among the review petitioner and the 3rd respondent got rightful claim against the vacancy of Headmaster on the retirement of the 2nd respondent was not considered in the judgment dated 29.07.2009 and the review petitioner was not a party to the Writ Petition. Such 'rightful claim' could be decided only in a properly instituted proceeding and not in a Review Petition. The apprehension of the petitioner is that implementation of the directions in the judgment dated 29.07.2009 would entail her reversion from the post of Headmistress . According to the review petitioner, during the pendency of the above Writ Petition, she was promoted as Headmistress on 01.04.2008. Virtually the review petitioner seeks for a modification or clarification to the effect that the judgment of the Full Bench dated 29.07.2009 shall not prejudice her claim for promotion to the post of Headmaster on the REVIEW PETITION NO. 928 OF 2010 3 retirement of the 2nd respondent. In view of the nature of the direction in the judgment dated 29.07.2009, the apprehension as also the contentions of the review petitioner cannot be held as baseless. 4. Evidently, the Full Bench had no occasion to consider the merits of the contentions of the review petitioner in respect of the above claim and therefore, it will be open to the review petitioner to raise her claim before the appropriate authority in appropriate proceedings and in which event, the judgment dated 29.07.2009 will not stand in the way of consideration of the said claim of the review petitioner against the 3rd respondent, viz., the 3rd petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 12707 of 2005 as against the vacancy of Headmaster of the school, on the retirement of the 2nd respondent. With the above observation, this Review Petition is disposed of. J. CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE lk