IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RP.No. 1021 of 2010(R) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.26401/2001 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS: RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN THE OP. -------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI K.SANILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & 3RD RESPONDENT IN THE OP. ----------------------------------------------------- 1. K.I.VARGHESE, RETIRED DRAFTSMAN OF M.A. COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KOLLIEALIL HOUSE, ANGADI, KOTHAMANGALAM,. 2. PRINCIPAL, M.A.COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KOTHAMANGALAM,. SHRI B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ R.P.No.1021/2010 in O.P. No.26401/2001-R ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 29th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T This review petition is filed by the Government pointing out that Annexure-I order passed by the Government with respect to certain similarly placed persons and, in the light of the view taken therein, the direction issued by this Court in the impugned Judgment has to be reviewed. 2. The learned Government Pleader submitted that this Court rendered the Judgment herein relying upon the Judgment in W.A.No.1312/2008 dated 30/07/2009. Therein, the Division Bench had also observed that if the Government proposes to correct the grant of Higher Grade in other Colleges, they can do so after affording an opportunity of being heard to the affected persons. It is therefore pointed out that the direction issued by this Court in the Judgment has to be varied. 3. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that this Court has only followed the principles stated in O.P.No.32509/2001 which was confirmed in W.A.No.1312/2008 and, the subsequent order passed by the Government, that too in respect of parties therein, cannot R.P. No.1021/2010 -:2:- be a ground for seeking a review of the Judgment. Evidently, the Judgment is dated 17/05/2010 and the order passed by the Government is dated 28/08/2010. If the review petitioners have got a case that the directions issued are not sustainable, the remedy is to file an appeal against the Judgment. Apart from that as the review petitioners are relying on a subsequent order passed by the Government, wherein the writ petitioner herein is also not a party, the review petition is dismissed leaving open the remedy of the review petitioners to file an appeal if they think so. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms