IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 16TH BHADRA 1931 WA.No. 1972 of 2009 ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.16908/2009 Dated 28/07/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S)//PETITIONER:: ------------------- K.M.SUHARA, ABSU MANZIL, HOUSE NO.21, VIKAS NAGAR, PAPPAD LANE, NETTAYAM (PO), VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SRI.DIPU.R SRI.K.S.HARIDAS SRI.V.RENJITH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S)//RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION (L) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENNY GERVASIS. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A.No. 1972 of 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 7th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is the appellant. She was suspended from service by the Government by Ext.P4 order dated 13.2.2008. Feeling aggrieved by that order, she preferred Ext.P6 representation before the Government, seeking review of Ext.P4. Soon thereafter, the Home Department has intimated the Administrative Department (Education Department) that, there is no objection in reinstating the appellant. The reason was that, the investigation in the crime registered against her has already been completed. The Writ Petition was filed seeking a direction to the Government to reinstate her in service, in view of Ext.P1. The learned Single Judge directed the Government to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P6. Feeling aggrieved by the said direction, this Writ Appeal is filed. W.A. No.1972 of 2009 - 2 - 2. The petitioner has already invoked the remedy of review available to her against Ext.P4 by filing Ext.P6. It is a statutory remedy. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution is not concurrent. So, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. See the decision in Mc Dowell and Co., v. Assistant Commissioner, (1985 KLT 428). Since the review petition was pending for some time, the learned Single Judge directed the Government to consider Ext.P6 review petition. We find nothing wrong with the said direction. We are sure, while the Government pass orders on Ext.P6, they will also take into account the opinion of the Home Department in Ext.P1, along with other relevant matters. Subject to the above observation, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. Sd/- P. Bhavadasan, Judge. DK.