IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 RP.No. 1254 of 2007(S) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.33773/2007 DT.15.11.2007 OA.406/2007 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER --------------------------------------------- K.T.SIVANANDAN, PROGRAMME EXECUTIVE, DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SASIDHARAN CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL SRI.S.VISHNU RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING, NEW DELHI. 2. PRASAR BHARATHY, (BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA), NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, PRASAR BHARATHY (BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA), DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, NEW DELHI. 4. THE DIRECTOR, DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-43. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM THOMAS, CGC FOR R1 TO 4 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- R.P. NO.1254/2007 IN W.P.(C) NO. 33773 OF 2007-S ----------------------------------------- Dated 20th June, 2008. ORDER Balakrishnan Nair, J. Though several grounds were raised in the Review Petition, after hearing the matter for some time, the learned counsel for the review petitioner pointed out that in view of the dismissal of the O.A by the C.A.T and its affirmation by this Court, by the judgment under review, the representation filed by the review petitioner before the competent authority, seeking to cancel the transfer on compassionate ground, is not being considered, even though the said representation was recommended by his immediate superior by Annexure-A5. We clarify that we have not dealt with the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner, especially the one raised on compassionate ground. We considered only regarding the grounds available for judicial review, such as illegality, lack of jurisdiction etc. If it is found that no grounds are made out for judicial review, it does not mean that there RP 1254/2007 2 is no ground for the departmental authority to reconsider the petitioner's claim. So, the competent authority among the respondents will process and consider the representation filed by the review petitioner, which is recommended as per Annexure-A5 by his immediate superior, without delay. The Review Petition is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/