IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2008 / 5TH MAGHA 1929 RP.No. 1157 of 2007(S) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.23816/2007 Dated 24/09/2007 REVIEW PETITIONER/6TH RESPONDENT ARUN JADHAV, THE ASSISTANT SURVEYOR OF WORKS, CIRCLE OFFICE,LAKSHADWEEP PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, KAVARATTI, LAKSHADWEEP. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANJAY SRI.A.PARVATHI MENON SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 1. ABDUL SALAM M.K., ASSISTANT ENGINEER (CIVIL), LAKSHADWEEP PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, AMINI ISLAND, LAKSHADWEEP. 2. YOONIS HAJI, S/O. ABDUL KHADER HAJI, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, AMINI ISLAND, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, RESIDING AT GOVERNMENT QUARTERS AT AMINI, LAKSHADWEEP. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT (DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT), NEW DELHI. 4. THE ADMINISTRATOR, LAKSHADWEEP ADMINISTRATION, KAVARATTI ISLAND, LAKSHADWEEP. 5. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, KAVARATTI ISLAND, LAKSHADWEEP. 6. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, NEW DELHI, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV.SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY ADV.ALEX VARAGAHESE CGC FOR R3 TO R6 ADV.M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR(SR.) ADV.M.R.HARIRAJ ADV.S.RADHAKRISHNAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,JJ. ============================================== REVIEW PETITION NO.1157/2007 IN W.P.(C)23816/2007 ============================================== Dated this the 25th day of January 2008 JUDGMENT Sixth respondent in the writ petition is the review petitioner. He submits that he is senior to the writ petitioner and therefore his claim should also be considered along with that of the petitioner while the competent authority undertakes the review of promotion ordered as per the judgment under review. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the respondents also. Learned counsel for the first respondent, who is the writ petitioner submitted that pursuant to the direction of this Court in the judgment under review, the review DPC has already met and a decision as to who should be promoted has already been taken. The submission is supported by the learned counsel for the Lakshadweep Administration also. 3. If the claim of the petitioner/review petition was not considered while considering the claim of the first respondent for promotion, we feel that the same should be done. The DPC shall R.P.1157/2007 2 consider the claim of the review petitioner herein also along with the claim of the first respondent/writ petitioner for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. For that, a review DPC shall be held and final decision taken, within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Till such time, the decision taken by the DPC, which met recently, shall be treated as provisional. Review Petition is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE css/