IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2009 / 29TH ASHADHA 1931 RP.No. 780 of 2006(E) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.21889/2001 Dated 27/03/2006 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (REGISTRATION TAXES (E) DEPT., GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES, DIRECTORATE TREASURIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GEORGE VADAKKEL. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. SHAJI DIVAKAR, MANIYAZHIKATHU VEEDU (SHANU NIVAS), PANTHRANADU MURI, THATTAMALA.P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. G.SURESH KUMAR KURUP, SASIMANDHIRAM, ULIANAD, KARAMKODE.P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. R.JAYASREE, JOYDALE, PINACKAL, THATTAMALA.P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.ANIL K.NARENDRAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------------- R.P. No.780/2006 in O.P. No.21889/2001 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 20th July, 2009. O R D E R Adv.Sri.Anil K.Narendran appears for the second respondent. This is a review petition at the instance of the State, the respondents in the writ petition. The issue raised in the writ petition pertains to appointment of stamp vendors prior to the amendment to Rule 35 of the Kerala Manufacture and Sale of Stamp Rules, 1960, introduced in the year 2003. Prior to the amendment, preference was available to the legal heirs of the deceased licensees. In that view of the matter, this court made it clear that the vacancies which arose prior to the amendment should be considered in the light of the unamended rules, and disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents/review petitioners to take appropriate action in the light of Ext.P10 circular. Learned Government Pleader submits that Ext.P10 circular had already been quashed by this court as per Annexure B judgment in O.P.No.30482/2000. But it is to be seen that the issue considered by this court in Annexure B judgment does not pertain to a claim for appointment as per RP NO.780/2006 2 the unamended rules. The dispute raised in the said writ petition pertained only to the composition of the committee for selection. Though technically the review petitioners are right in holding that Ext.P10 does not survive, that does not by itself affect the consideration of the claim made by the writ petitioners for appointment in respect of the vacancies which arose prior to the amendment of the rules. Therefore, it is clarified that for the only reason that Ext.P10 circular has been set aside by this court as per Annexure B judgment, the case of the writ petitioners for appointment as per the unamended rules cannot be delayed or refused. It is for the appointing authority to take appropriate action for appointment in terms of the judgment. With the above clarification, the review petition is dismissed. The appointment, if not already made, shall be made within one month from the date of production of a copy of this order. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. tgs KURIAN JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------------- R.P. No.780/2006 in O.P. No.21889/2001 ---------------------------------------------- O R D E R Dated 20th July, 2009.