IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2009 / 9TH SRAVANA 1931 RP.No. 792 of 2006(N) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.3491/2000 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS ---------------------------------------------------- 1. FRANCIS JOHN K., KANDAMKULATHIL HOUSE, KAKKULISSERI P.O., IYRANIKULAM, KUZHOOR (VIA), THRISSUR-680 734. 2. RAJMOHANAN R., CHARUVILAPUTHEN VEEDU, OTTACKAL P.O., THENMALA. 3. RAJESH KUMAR D., MULAKKAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KULATHUPUZHA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL GENERATION AND SYSTEM OPERATION), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, GENERATION CIRCLE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MOOZHIYAR. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ERECTION DIVISION, THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THENMALA, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------------- R.P. No.792/2006 in O.P.No.3491/2000 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 31st July, 2009. O R D E R This is a petition for review at the instance of the writ petitioners. The writ petitioners claimed regularization in service. By judgment dated 16.6.2006, this court directed the respondent Board to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the action taken in the case of similarly situated employees covered by Ext.P9. It is seen that the respondents had in fact considered the case of the petitioners and had found that the petitioners are not similarly situated as those covered by Ext.P9. If that be so, it is for the petitioners, if still aggrieved, to pursue the challenge in appropriate original proceedings and not by way of a review. Even otherwise, I do not think that the petitioners would be entitled to any relief, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others (2006(4) SCC 1). Therefore, there is nothing to be reviewed in the judgment. The review petition is dismissed. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. tgs KURIAN JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------------- R.P. No.792/2006 in O.P.No.3491/2000 ---------------------------------------------- O R D E R Dated 31st July, 2009.