IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2010 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1932 RP.No. 427 of 2010(Y) --------------------- {IN WPC.29608/2007 OF THIS COURT} .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 4TH RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------ THE MANAGER, MATTAKARA HIGH SCHOOL, MATTAKARA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 & 5 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SMT.MAYA.S, W/O.SUDHEER, DEVI VILASAM, MATTAKKARA.P.O, KOTTAYAM. (FORMERLY WORKING AS UPSA). 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. 5. SMT.GEETHA G.NAIR, LOWER GRADE HINDI TEACHER, MATTAKARA HIGH SCHOOL, MATTAKARA, KOTTAYAM. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------- R.P.No.427 of 2010 in W.P.(C)No.29608 of 2007 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. The judgment sought to be reviewed has been rendered interpreting Rule 51-A of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules. The grounds raised in this review petition filed by the Manager of the School are essentially grounds challenging the findings rendered on the interpretation of the Rule. We do not find any ground, which could be treated as one generating a foundation for a review petition. There is no error apparent on the face of the judgment. The review petition is, therefore, not maintainable. Not only that, the judgment sought to be reviewed is rendered on a reference made to the Division Bench to resolve the apparent conflict between two judgments and we have no reason to assume that all aspects of the matter have not been R.P.No.427 of 2010 in W.P.(C)No.29608/07 :: 2 :: considered. What the review petitioner seeks is essentially an appellate consideration. That is impermissible. Accordingly, we find no ground to review the judgment. This application for review the hence fails. In the result, this review petition is dismissed in limine. Sd/- (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN) JUDGE Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge.