IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2009 / 26TH ASHADHA 1931 RP.No. 684 of 2009(Y) ------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WP(C).15953/2008 Dated 01/07/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/ADDL.5TH RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------- BINDU THANKAPPAN W/O.ANILKUMAR, AGED 38, PUTHENPURAYIL, AZHIKAL P.O, PRAYAR, KOLLAM (NOW WORKING AS VOCATIONAL INSTRUCTIOR(GENERAL INSURANCE), G.V.H.S.S., AMBALAMUGAHAL. BY MR.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI, ADVOCATE. MR.P.M.JOSEPH, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 AND ADDL.RES.6 TO 10: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. DIVYA P., D/O.RAMACHANDRAN. P, PURAYATH HOUSE, VITHANASSERY, NENMARA - 578 508. 2. THE KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE REGIONAL OFFICER, KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, TRIVANDRUM. 5. THE DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL HIGHER EDUCATION, TRIVANDRUM. RP.No. 684/2009 ...2... 6. SAJEESH M.P, MUTHAYIL HOUSE, ANNALLUR PO, VIA.CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR. 7. R.SANTHOSH RAJAN, R.B.NIVAS, SREEKRISHNAPURAM, MALAYINKAL P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 571. 8. BEETHA V, VAROLI HOUSE, KURUVATTOOR POST, KAKOZHI VIA, KOZHIKODE - 673 622. 9. P.KRISHNAKUMAR, PARAPPORIDAM HOUSE, CHATHAMANGALAM P.O, VIA R.E.C, KOZHIKODE - 673 601. 10. A.SAJEENA, VARAMBIL THEKKETHIL, MARU SOUTH, ALUMKADAVU, KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM. BY MR. R.S.KALKURA, ADVOCATE, FOR R7. MR. A.J. VARGHESE, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER. MR. GEORGE ABRAHAM, ADVOCATE, FOR R1. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- R.P. No.684 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C) No.15953 OF 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of July, 2009. O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondents. 2. It is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner that even though the review petitioner was sought to be impleaded as a party respondent by filing an application for impleading, that petition was not allowed and therefore, she did not get an opportunity to file counter affidavit before the disposal of the writ petition. 3. On a perusal of the proceedings of this Court, it is seen that notice on the impleading petition and the writ petition was ordered on 28.05.2009. But, I.A No.1833/2009 has not been allowed. Therefore, disposal of the writ petition without allowing the application for impleadment vitiates the judgment itself. Hence, this review petition is allowed and the judgment dated 01.07.2009 in W.P.(C) No.15953/2008 is recalled. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp