IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2009 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1931 RP.No. 1034 of 2009(M) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.24069/2007 Dated 06/10/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER IN THE WPC. -------------------------------------------- K.R.MANOJ, PRINCIPAL,TECHNICAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL (THSS),PUTHUPPALLY,RESIDING AT KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, THODANAL P.O.,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,PIN CODE-686 573. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.VIJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS NOS.1,2 & ADDL.R3 TO 5 IN THE WPC. ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT (IHRD),REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PRAJOE TOWERS,VAZHATHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014. 3. KRISHNADAS G.,S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN C., MANAKKATTUKALAM,KINASSERY,PALAKKAD. (LECTURER IN MATHEMATICS,MODEL ENGINEERING COLLEGE,THRIKKAKKARA) 4. JOHNSON PHILIP,S/O.E.V.PHILIP, EDAKKAMANNIL HOUSE,NEAR GRACE GARDEN, THRIKKAKKARA P.O.,COCHIN-21.(PALAKKAD LECTURER IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION MODEL ENGINEERING COLLEGE, THRIKKAKKARA) 5. SHERLIMOL P.B.,W/O.JOHNSON PHILIP, EDAKKAMANNIL HOUSE,NEAR GRACE GARDEN, THRIKKAKKARA P.O.,COCHIN-21.(PALAKKAD LECTURER IN CHEMISTRY,MODEL ENGINEERING COLLEGE, THRIKKAKKARA) BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANUSIVARAMAN R2 BY MR. N.N. UGUNAPALAN SC IHRD R2 BY ADV. MR.S.SUJIN, SC IHRD R3 to R5 ADV. SRI. SUBHASH CHAND THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------------------------------------- R.P.NO.1034/09 IN W.P.(C) NO.24069/07(M) ------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October, 2009 O R D E R Heard the counsel for the review petitioner. 2. Among the prayers sought for, I feel that the petitioner is justified in his contention that in the cause title of the judgment the name of additional respondents 3 to 5 have been omitted. It is also pointed out that the counsel who appeared for respondents 3 and 5 also have represented the additional 4th respondent. The aforesaid submission is perfectly justified. Accordingly it is directed that the names of additional respondents 3 to 5 will be shown in the cause title and it will also be shown that the 4th respondent was represented by the counsel who appeared for respondents 3 and 5 also. 3. In so far as the other grievances highlighted in the review petition are concerned, those issues do not arise in a review petition and if at all the petitioner is aggrieved his remedy is to file an appeal against those findings. Review is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC /09 :2 :