IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2009 / 18TH POUSHA 1930 RP.No. 1358 of 2008(N) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.35838/2008 Dated 04/12/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- RAFEEK M, URDU TEACHER, (FULLTIME), VILLIAPPALLI UP SCHOOL, VILLIAPPALLI, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THODANNUR, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DIST. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SUDHA DEVI THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ------------------------------- R.P.No.1358/08 IN W.P(C).No.35838/08 ------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of January, 2009. O R D E R The writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 4th December, 2008, taking the view that Ext.P6 is a revisable order. That conclusion was on the basis that Ext.P6 was issued by the Deputy Director of Education. But in the review petition it is pointed out that Ext.P6 is issued by the AEO and that the conclusion in the judgment that Ext.P6 is a revisable order is incorrect. 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. A perusal of Ext.P6 shows that the order was issued by the AEO and not by the Deputy Director as mentioned in the judgment. Therefore, the judgment is to be reviewed. Review Petition is allowed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/