IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1930 RP.No. 1073 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.19744/2005 Dated 01/08/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/3RD RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------- P.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (MECHANICAL ), MECHANICAL ENGINEERING WING, PORT DEPARTMENT, NEENDAKARA PORT, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS ------------------------------------- 1. M.VISWANATHAN, S/O. LATE M.APPUNNY, AGED 43 YEARS, HEAD DRAFTSMAN (ASSISTANT ENGINEER) (M), DIRECTORATE OF PORTS, TRIVANDRUM. 2. P.MOOSA, S/O. MUHAMMED, AGED 39 YEARS, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (M), MECHANICAL ENGINEERING BEYPORE PORT, KOZHIKODE-15. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FISHERIES AND PORTS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF PORTS, TRIVANDRUM-10. ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== R.P.No.1073 of 2007 IN W.P.(C) NO. 19744 OF 2005 (A) ==================== Dated this the 24th day of November, 2008 O R D E R The 3rd respondent in the writ petition is the review petitioner. 2. The writ petition was disposed of taking note of the grievance of the writ petitioners that they were excluded from the DPC held for 2002 despite their eligibility, on the ground that there were adverse remarks in their confidential records, which according to them were not communicated to them. Taking note of this, it was ordered that the confidential records should be communicated and they will be given an opportunity to make their representations in the matter. It was also made clear that if the adverse remarks are remedial in nature, the course provided in Rule 28(b)(1)(4) of the KS & SSR will also be adopted. 3. The review petitioner submits that the assumption made in the judgment that the adverse remarks were not communicated is erroneous and he is relying on Annexure 2 communication obtained by him from the State Public Information Officer on 27/9/07 suggesting that in so far as the first petitioner in the writ petition is concerned, he was communicated the confidential records for the year 1998-2000. It is also stated that in so far RP 1073/07 :2 : as second writ petitioner is concerned, he was communicated the confidential records for 1998-99. On this basis, it is contended that there are factual errors and hence review is sought for. 4. On the other hand, the writ petitioners argue for the position that the confidential records were not in fact communicated and that even the signature that is seen in the documents are forged. They have other complaints also about the confidential records that are maintained. Counsel also placed reliance on Ext.P3 issued by the Director of Ports on 20/11/2003 to the Secretary to Government reporting about the improper maintenance of the confidential records. 5. Evidently, therefore, the factual controversies relate to the maintenance of the confidential records, signatures that are obtained and there are also other complaints about confidential records. Now that in the judgment, it has been directed that once the process of communication and rectification, if any, is completed, the matter will be placed before the DPC and since the DPC is yet to meet, I feel it appropriate that at the time when the DPC takes up the matter for consideration as directed in the judgment, the controversies raised by the parties in this review petition should also be considered, with notice to the RP 1073/07 :3 : parties hereto. 6. Therefore, I direct that the review petitioner shall produce a copy of this order before the Convenor of the DPC, who shall take necessary steps as directed above. Review petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp