IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2008 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1930 RP.No. 498 of 2008(T) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.30407/2006 Dated 26/03/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION (T) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2, THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. JOINT DIRECT (DIRECTOR IN CHARGE) OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R.SREELATHA RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ K.R. SATHEESH CHANDRAN, S/O. LATE RAVEENDRAN, TC 4/1482 KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.I.DAVIS THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- R.P No. 498 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 27th May, 2008 O R D E R The writ petitioner had approached this Court contending that he was appointed temporary as Peon but thereafter allowed to continue in service and though discharging the duties of Part time Sweeper apprehends termination of service. He had also referred to Exhibit P3 communication issued by the Secretary to Government to the Director of Higher Secondary Education informing that one post of Part time Contingent Sweeper has been created vide Government Order dated 7.6.2008 and permitted the Director to appoint the petitioner in the post. Apparently, at the time of hearing of the writ petition, it was reiterated that the Government had taken a decision to appoint the petitioner as Part Time Sweeper. Taking note of the above submission, this Court had disposed of the writ petition noting that consequential orders by the Director shall also follow without further delay. R.P No. 498 of 2008 2 2. Review Petition has now been filed contending that Government had not taken a decision to appoint the petitioner as Part time Sweeper. Therefore, there is factual error which constitutes an error apparent on the face of the judgment. 3. I heard Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. 4. Admittedly, Exhibit P3 does not seem to have been withdrawn even as on date nor is it the case of the State that Government order which is referred to in Exhibit P3 has been withdrawn. Contention taken in the review petition is to the effect that petitioner was only a Peon working on daily wages and he was discharging duties as Part time Sweeper at that point of time and that the Government had not actually taken a decision to appoint the petitioner. 5. Exhibit P3 shows that referring to a Government Order dated 7.6.2006 the Director of Higher Secondary Education was permitted to appoint the petitioner. As long as the order issued by the Government in Exhibit P3 remains in force, it cannot be said that there is any error in the judgment as such. Submission of the learned Government Pleader was only in R.P No. 498 of 2008 3 consonance with Exhibit P3. I do not find any grounds to review the judgment. But if there are circumstances which enables the Government to recall Exhibit P3 or the Government order dated 7.6.2006 which is referred to in Exhibit-P3 then this judgment will not stand in the way of Government doing so. But this is of course subject to adequate notice being given to the petitioner and affording adequate opportunity to the petitioner to resist any such move, if taken in that regard. Subject to the above, review petition is dismissed. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma R.P No. 498 of 2008 4