IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2009 / 10TH MAGHA 1930 RP.No. 1246 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.461/2008 Dated 02/07/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/THIRD PARTY:- ----------------------------------------------------- S.SHEEBA, UPSA, INDIRA GANDHI MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL, MANJAKKALA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT PAVITHRAM, VADACODE, KURA P.O., KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.T.R.SADEESAN SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT& RESPONDENTS:- ----------------------------------------- 1. THE MANAGER , INDIRA GANDHI MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL MANJAKKALA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. SMT. JALAJA KUMARI V.V, UPSA, INDIRA GANDHI MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL;, MANJAKKALA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOTTARAKKARA. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. SMT. T.N.SADHYA, H.S.A. (MALAYALAM), INDIRA GANDHI MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL, MANJAKKALA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. RP 1246/2008 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.NOBLE MATHEW – R3 TO R5 ADV.SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM – R1 ADV.SRI.M.V.THAMBAN. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- R.P. NO.1246/2008 IN W.A. NO. 461 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated 30th January, 2009. ORDER Balakrishnan Nair, J. This Review Petition is filed by an U.P.S.A., working in the 1st respondent's school, apprehending that she may be affected by the direction of the learned Single Judge to accommodate the 6th respondent herein as U.P.S.A., which was affirmed by the Division Bench by the judgment under review. Admittedly, the review petitioner is senior to the 6th respondent herein in the cadre of U.P.S.A., as she has continuous approved service from 16.7.1998. The 6th respondent has continuous approved service only from 15.7.1999. So, in order to accommodate the 6th respondent, the review petitioner can, in no way, be disturbed. Her apprehensions are totally RP 1246/08 2 unfounded and the Review Petition is ill-conceived. Accordingly, it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nm/