IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2010 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RP.No. 1208 of 2008(P) --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.16943/2003 DATED 16/10/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN THE WPC -------------------------------------------------------------------- DR.S.K. SREEKUMAR, T.C. 36/287(1), 'KARTHIKA', MANAVA NAGAR, PALKULANGARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 24. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J., SRI.S.RAMESH, SRI.T.NAVEEN. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE WPC ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC, KPSC. R2 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/12/2010, ALONG WITH RP NO. 1277 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,J. ------------------------------ R.P.No.1208 OF 2008 IN W.P(C).No.16943 OF 2003 & R.P.No.1277 OF 2008 IN O.P.No.5819 OF 2002 ------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of December, 2010 O R D E R 1.These review petitions are by those who aspire to be appointed as lecturers in Education Technology. By the judgment sought to be reviewed, it was noticed that as regards the post of lecturer in Education Technology, if the candidates have to possess a Post Graduate Degree other than M.Ed. Degree, they will have to necessarily have a Post Graduate Degree in the subject of Education Technology which is one not available in any of the Indian universities. Therefore, this Court required the Government to consider that issue for a decision appropriately. It was also directed that no fresh notification inviting RP.1208/08 & 1277/08 2 applications shall be issued before a decision is rendered by the Government in this regard. 2.The review petitioners stand to say that the Government have, thereafter, issued an amendment. For one thing, that amendment only puts cut off marks for the Post Graduate or Masters Degree. It does not do away with the requirement of Masters Degree in Education Technology. Whatever that be, it is within the province of the rule making authority to make it prospective or not. The proposed rules are not retrospective. 3.Not only that, even by the time the judgment was delivered, the ranked list had expired. Therefore, even if the petitioners were interviewed by the Public service Commission on the basis of interim orders of this Court and RP.1208/08 & 1277/08 3 even if their names had appeared in the ranked list, they could not have enjoyed the benefit of the interim order because the ranked list, as a matter of fact, expired before the original petitions were decided and even on the date on which the original petitions were decided, the fact remained that the rules were not supportive of the stand of the petitioners. 4.In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any ground to hold that there is an error apparent on the face of the record of the judgment or that it is to be reviewed on any other grounds. In the result, these review petitions fail. They are accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioners, if any, to seek other remedies even in relation to RP.1208/08 & 1277/08 4 subsequent notifications or in relation to the rules in accordance with law. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.14/12.