IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 RP.No. 120 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.18173/2004 Dated 15/07/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------ 1. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM BOARD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR, CULTURAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER, SC, TDB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. P.K.CHANDRA BABU, COMPOSITOR (DAILY WAGE), DEVASWOM BOARD PRESS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. K.R.JAYARANI, BINDER (DAILY WAGE), DEVASWOM BOARD PRESS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. S.S.SANDHYARANI, DO. DO. 4. V.LEKAHA, DO. DO. 5. T.R.SANDHYA RANI, DO. DO. 6. S.REMADEVI, DO. DO. 7. R.VIJAYALEKSHMI, DO. DO. 8. K.R.LEKHA, MISCELLANEOUS WORKS, DEVASWOM BOARD PRESS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2 9. G.JAYASANKAR, LASCAR (DAILY WAGE), DEVASWOM BOARD PRESS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 10. G.SARASWATHI ANTHARJANAM, SWEEPER, (DAILY WAGE), DEVASWOM BOARD PRESS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K. MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- R.P. No. 120 OF 2009 AGAINST W.P.C. NO. 18173 OF 2004 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2009 O R D E R Ramachandran Nair,J. Heard counsel for the Review Petitioner and counsel appearing for the respondents. Review Petition is filed for the reason that after the amendment to the Kerala Public Service Commission Act, appointment to the Devaswom Board could be made only through Public Service Commission with effect from 1.7.2008. According to counsel for the review petitioner, after the amendment effective from 1.7.2008, appointment could be made after obtaining approval from the Devaswom Bench of this Court. However, we do not find any justification for interference because the judgment in effect authorises only regularisation of respondents who served the Devaswom continuously for 14 to 17 years as on the date of judgment. We therefore dismiss the Review Petition as regularisation does not amount to fresh appointment. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (V.K. MOHANAN) kk Judge. 2