IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 RP.No. 427 of 2008(S) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN COC.1170/2007 Dated 12/02/2008 .................... PETITIONER:/3RD PARTY: ---------------------------------------- SAJU.R.L., T.C.14/552, NANDAVANAM, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHEER RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.T.AJITH KUMAR, (METER READER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, ETTUMANOOR), PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL TEMPORARY) K.S.E.B., GENERAL CIRCLE, MEENCUT, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. M.GIRISH, (SUB ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), K.S.E.B.THAKAZHY) PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL-TEMPORARY) LOWER PERIYAR POWER HOUSE, KARIMANAL. 3. MR.M.SUBAIR, SECRETARY, K.S.E.B. VYDYHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DR.G.PAVITHRAN, CHIEF ENGINEER (H.R.M), K.S.E.B., VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN, SC THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- R.P No.427 of 2008 in I.A. No.678 of 2007 in Cont.Case No.1170 of 2007 -------------------------- Dated this the 7th April, 2008 O R D E R Review Petition has been filed after obtaining leave from this Court essentially in relation to paragraph 4 of the order in the Interlocutory Application, which reads as follows: Mr.Asok M.Cherian, learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB submits that subject to the above, orders will be passed by the Board within a period of three months assigning the petitioners and others who have been promoted under Annexure-IV, the date of effect of their promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. Submission is recorded. I also note that this step is necessary for effecting compliance with the directions issued by this Court in Annexure-I judgment. 2. Learned counsel for the review petitioners Sri.Pirappancode V.S Sudheer submits that firstly complete facts were not brought to this Court while passing the order dated 12.2.2008. Secondly, at any rate, the direction in para 5 of the order to the following effect causes prejudice to the review R.P No.427 of 2008 2 petitioners: “Respondents shall pass orders assigning the date of effect of promotion to all the 66 persons included in Annexure iv, including the petitioners, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This shall be done in terms of the direction issued in Annexure-1 judgment” have deliberately been taken as a seal of approval granted by this Court. In so far as Annexure IV order mentioned therein is concerned, the said order is a proceedings of the Electricity Board dated 5.11.2007 granting promotion to 66 persons to the post of Assistant Engineer. This includes the two petitioners in the Contempt of Court Case also. 3. I have no doubt in my mind that in issuing the above direction, I did not in any manner intend to pronounce on the correctness of Annexure IV order as such. All that was done was that I recorded the submission made by the learned counsel for the Electricity Board that an order dated 5.112007 has been passed granting promotion to 66 persons. This included the two petitioners in the contempt of court case also. Apparently, Annexure IV is the subject matter of challenge in certain other R.P No.427 of 2008 3 writ petitions pending before this Court. There is also a dispute according to Mr.Asok M.Cherian, among the persons who are already included in Annexure IV as regards the assignment of due date of promotion. 4. I make it clear that the direction in para 5 of the order dated 12.2.2008 was essentially in consequence of the submission made on behalf of the Electricity Board and was not intended to convey any approval of this Court in so far as the correctness of the order Annexure IV or the non-inclusion of any persons therein. These matters were obviously beyond the scope of the contempt of court case. The contempt of court case was closed recording the submission of the Electricity Board. In view of the position as clarified above, I do not think it is necessary to review the order dated 12.2.2008. The review petition is therefore, closed subject to the clarification effected as above. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma R.P No.427 of 2008 4 K.THANKAPPAN,J CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999 R.P No.427 of 2008 5 ORDER 25th May, 2007 Common issues are raised for consideration in all these writ petitions. Reference is made to the facts in Writ Petition No.4562/2008 for the sake of convenience.