IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2011 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1932 RP.No. 168 of 2011(E) ------------------------------ [AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.10285/2009 DATED 09/04/2010] .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/THIRD PARTY: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. JOSEPH.T.P., AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. PHILIP, RESIDING AT THOTTAMATTATHIL HOUSE, AMUP SCHOOL, VETTATHOOR.P.O., VETTATHOOR, MELATTOOR (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 679 326. 2. K.G. PADMANABHAN NAIR, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. K.N. GOPALAN NAIR, AMUP SCHOOL, VETTATHOOR.P.O., MELATTOOR (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 679 326. BY ADVS. SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SRI.HARISH GOPINATH RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. C.R. NARAYANA PILLAI, HEADMASTER, (UNDER SUSPENSION), ILLIMOOTTIL HOUSE, VETTATHOOR.P.O., MELATTUR (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 679 326. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 01. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 01. R.P. NO.168/2011-E: 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 679 328. 5. THE MANAGER, AMUP SCHOOL, VETTATHOOR.P.O., MALAPPURAM – 679 326. 6. THE ASST. EDUCATION OFFICER, MELATTUR, MELATTUR.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 679 326. R2 TO R4 AND R6 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. NISHA BOSE, R5 BY ADVS. SRI.K.JAJU BABU, SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, SRI.T.R.SADEESAN, SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH. ADV. SRI. DEEPU THANKAN. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.168/2011 in W.P.(C) No. 10285 of 2009-E - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2011. O R D E R This review petition is filed by two persons who are not parties in the writ petition. 2. The writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein and the relief sought in the writ petition was for a direction to reinstate him in service in compliance with the directions contained in Ext.P7 order passed by the first respondent and taking into account that the first respondent is due to retire on 31.3.2009. 3. The first respondent was the Headmaster of the school and he was suspended from service on 15.10.2007pending disciplinary action. After enquiry, the punishment proposed by the Manager even though was one of dismissal, it was not permitted by the District Educational Officer as per Ext.P3 order. Finally, by Ext.P7 order dated 24.3.2009, the Government, after finding that he has attained superannuation on 30.11.2008, ordered him to be reinstated in service and to finalise the disciplinary action against him within two weeks. The order passed by the District Educational RP 168/2011 2 Officer was upheld. First respondent filed the writ petition to implement it. 4. The writ petition was disposed of in the light of the submissions made by both parties. It was submitted that the first respondent was willing to retire from service on 15.10.2007, the date of the order of suspension. Learned counsel for the Manager submitted that the Manager was agreeable for the same and recording the submission, the writ petition was disposed of. 5. The grievance raised by the review petitioners is that if the first respondent is not retiring from service on 31.3.2009, it may affect the petitioners. The first petitioner in the review petition is entitled to be posted as Headmaster in the vacancy which would have arisen on 31.3.2009. It is pointed out that certain writ petitions are pending before this Court, in the matter. 6. Learned counsel for the review petitioners submitted that if the directions in the judgment are allowed to stand, the first petitioner herein who is the seniormost teacher as on 31.3.2009, will not be appointed as Headmaster. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in terms of the directions issued by this Court, already the retirement benefits have been RP 168/2011 3 sanctioned to the first respondent taking the date of retirement as 15.10.2007. It is further pointed out that the review petitioners have no role in the matter concerning disciplinary action against him. 8. Evidently, the review petitioners have no direct interest in the disciplinary action which was taken against the first respondent. Hence, they cannot have any grievance with regard to the relief sought for in the writ petition as well as in respect of the directions issued in the judgment. The filling up of the vacancy as on 31.3.2009 was not an issue in the writ petition also. 9. In that view of the matter, there is no apparent error in the judgment and the review petition is devoid of any merit. Further, the review petition is not maintainable as such, since the petitioners are not having any direct interest in the subject matter of the writ petition. Hence, the review petition is dismissed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/