IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2010 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RP.No. 1083 of 2010(U) AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.10.2010 IN W.P.(C) NO.30162 OF 2010 REVIEW PETITIONERS: RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY SECRETARY GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANNUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS & 3RD RESPONDENT: --------------- 1. RAJEEVAN.V.K., HSA (MALAYALAM) SNT HSS, KANNUR, THOTTADA P.O., PIN - 670 007. 2. LETHA.K.C., HSA (PS), SNT HSS, KANNUR, THOTTADA P.O., PIN - 670 007. 3. THE MANAGER, SN TRUSTS SCHOOLS, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 001. ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALIDHARAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Review Petition NO.1083 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of December, 2010 O R D E R This Review Petition is filed by respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.(C) No.30162 of 2010 seeking to review the judgment dated 15.10.2010. It is submitted that the Writ Petition was disposed of at the admission stage and therefore, respondents 1 and 2 did not get an effective and meaningful opportunity to put forward their contentions. It is submitted that the writ petitioners are not entitled to any relief and the direction to pay salary to them was not proper. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that Subhash.K. and Soumya.P.T., who were transferred from SNTHSS, Kannur, were appointed without appointing a protected teacher in the newly opened school. However, their appointments were approved only relaxing the Rules. The petitioners are not entitled to such relaxation and therefore, they are not entitled to get salary. It is also submitted that mutual transfer is not possible in aided institutions. As per G.O.(P) No.178/2002/G.Edn. dated 28.6.2002, all the vacancies arising in the newly opened or newly upgraded schools should be filled up by appointing protected teachers. This applies to transfer also. R.P. NO.1083 OF 2010 :: 2 :: 2. In the judgment sought to be reviewed, no finding has been rendered on the merits of the contentions raised by the writ petitioners. In fact, the writ petitioners had contended that all the four teachers namely, Subhash.K., Soumya.P.T. and the two writ petitioners (Rajeevan.V.K. and Latha K.C.) had approved service and they were getting salary regularly. The writ petitioners were transferred to SNTHSS, Kannur. Subhash.K. and Soumya P.T., who were working in SNTHSS, Kannur were transferred to the schools where the writ petitioners were working. After such transfer, Subhash.K. and Soumya P.T. were being paid salary. But, salary was denied to the petitioners. In that background, finding a great injustice, a direction was issued to pay salary to the writ petitioners, after holding that as against Ext.P5 order alternative remedy is available to the writ petitioners. Accordingly, the writ petitioners were permitted to file revision and the first respondent was directed to consider that revision. No finding on the contentions put forward by the writ petitioners was rendered in the judgment. 3. Sri.R.K.Muraleedharan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners submitted that challenging Ext.P5 order, a Revision R.P. NO.1083 OF 2010 :: 3 :: was filed by the writ petitioners before the first respondent in the Writ Petition and the Revision is pending. The legality or otherwise of Ext.P5 order passed by the District Educational Officer can be considered by the Government in the Revision. If the Government is of the view that the order passed by the District Educational Officer was correct, nothing prevents the Government from deciding so. For that purpose, a Review Petition is not required. I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record or any other justifiable ground to review the judgment. The Review Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, since respondents 1 and 2 filed this Review Petition, I am of the view that the direction to pay arrears of salary and salary to the writ petitioners within a period of three weeks requires extension. Two weeks' time is granted to comply with that part of the judgment dated 15.10.2010. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/