IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1930 RP.No. 1247 of 2008(U) ---------------------- ( AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.3958/2008 Dated 07/08/2008 ) REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WPC ---------------------------------------- SINI.K.S.,D/O. C.SATHYAPALAN, AGED 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT KALLISSERY HOUSE, KONGORPILLY P.O.,ERNAKULAM-683525. BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR ADV. SRI.MANU GOVIND RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC -------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM PALACE, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SHRI MATHEW VADAKKEL. R2 BY ADV. SHRI ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, PSC. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. ........................................................................ C.M. APPLICATION NO. 422 OF 2008 IN UN-NUMBERED REVIEW PETITION OF 2008 ......................................................................... Dated this the 19th November, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner has filed a separate application in the Review Petition seeking to condone the delay. The decision of this Court reported in I.L.R. 2008 (2) Kerala 298 does not say that a separate application cannot be filed. The view taken was that a separate application to condone the delay is not necessary. That does not mean that a separate application would not be permitted. The objection is overruled. Number the Review Petition. In the facts and circumstances, as disclosed in the affidavit, the delay is condoned. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk K.T. SANKARAN, J. ....................................................... R.P. No. 1247 OF 2008 IN W.P.(C) 3958 OF 2008 .......................................................... Dated this the 19th November, 2008 O R D E R This Writ Petition was disposed of along with a batch of cases as per the judgment dated 07.08.2008. The contention of the Review Petitioner is that the Writ Petition filed by her is not connected with the other Writ Petitions which were disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Though at the time when the Writ Petitions were taken up for hearing, no mention was made that this Writ Petition is not connected with the other cases, the fact remains that, according to the petitioner, the question involved in this Writ Petition is not the same as involved in other cases, which were disposed of by a common judgment dated 07.08.2008. Therefore, the Review Petition is allowed. The judgment dated 07.08.2008 in W.P.(C)No. 3958 of 2008 is set aside. Post the Writ Petition for hearing before the appropriate court. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk