IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 RP.No. 959 of 2008(F) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.24205/2008 Dated 20/08/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- R.VASANTHA KUMARI PEON (NOW RELIEVED), GOVERNMENT HOMOEO DISPENSARY PUTHUSSERIMALA PATHANAMTHITTA, R/AT. KOLLEMPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHENNURKARA PO., KULANADA, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DIRECTOR OF HOMOEOPATHY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER(HOMOEO), PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- R.P. No.959 of 2008 in W.P.(C) No.24205 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 26th November, 2008. O R D E R Heard Sri.Thaliyal R.Gopakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner and Smt.Anu Sivaraman, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The review petitioner, a person with disability, was appointed as Peon in the Government Homeo Dispensary, Puthusserimala, by Ext.P2 appointment order dated 29.1.2008 for a period of 179 days. The period of 179 days expired on 1.8.2008 and thereupon she stood relieved from service. W.P.(C) No.24205 of 2008 was thereupon filed seeking continuance in service, till a regular hand recruited through the Kerala Public Service Commission joins duty. When the writ petition came up for admission on 20.8.2008, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the service of the petitioner was terminated on 1.8.2008 on the expiry of the term for which she was appointed RP.No.959 / 2008 2 and that a substitute has also taken charge. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed on 20.8.2008. In this review petition, relying on Annexure -I letter dated 27.8.2008 sent by the Medical Officer, Government Homeo Dispensary, Puthusserimala, to the District Medical Officer (Homeo), Pathanamthitta, the review petitioner contends that the post of Peon in the said hospital is lying vacant. The review petitioner further submits that the writ petition happened to be dismissed because of the incorrect submission made at the Bar by the learned Government Pleader that a substitute has been appointed in her place. In this review petition, the petitioner seeks a review of the judgment dated 20.8.2008, dismissing the writ petition. The review petitioner also refers to and relies on the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.22504/2008, wherein a similarly situated person were permitted to continue in service till a regular hand joins duty. 3. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel on either side. By judgment delivered on 7.8.2008 in W.P.(C) No.22504 of 2008, taking note of the RP.No.959 / 2008 3 statement filed by the District Medical Officer (Homeo), Pathanamthitta, this Court directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service and to permit her to continue in service, till a regular hand recruited by the Kerala Public Service Commission joins duty. It was also clarified that the petitioner therein will have no right to continue in service after a regular hand is appointed. The directions issued in W.P.(C) No.22504 of 2008, to reinstate the petitioner therein in service and to permit her to continue till a regular hand is appointed, were issued in the light of the statement filed by the District Medical Officer (Homeo), Pathanamthitta. I have by order passed today on R.P.No.1176 of 2008, reviewed the judgment in W.P.(C) No.22504 of 2008 and dismissed the said writ petition. The review petitioner cannot therefore rely on the judgment in W.P. (C) No.22504 of 2008 to contend that she is also entitled to continue in service till a regular hand joins duty. 4. As regards the contention that no substitute has been appointed in the petitioner's place, there is no serious RP.No.959 / 2008 4 controversy. It is not disputed that the post is even now lying vacant. The learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner submits that if no other candidate is available for appointment through the employment exchange, the person who had served earlier can be re-appointed and that as no substitute has been appointed in the petitioner's place, she is entitled to be reappointed and continue in service, till a regular hand joins duty. I am afraid, there is no merit in the said contention as well. As per the 9th proviso to Rule 9(a)(i) of Part II of the K.S. & S.S.R., a person appointed under Rule 9(a)(i) thereunder can be re-appointed only with the prior concurrence of the Kerala Public Service Commission and that too, if candidates are not available for appointment through the employment exchange. The petitioner has no case that the prior concurrence of the Kerala Public Service Commission has been obtained for her re- appointment or that candidates are not available for appointment through the employment exchange. Further, a Full Bench of this Court in Radha v. District Medical Officer (2002 (2) KLT 711) has held that persons appointed under Rule 9(a)(i) RP.No.959 / 2008 5 cannot continue in service beyond the term for which they were appointed or seek regularisation in service. The claim made by the petitioner in the review petition cannot therefore be entertained. The review petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE nj.