IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2011 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1932 RP.No. 156 of 2011(Y) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.34200/2010 Dated 23/11/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN THE W.PC ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.B. RAMANED RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS & 5TH RESPONDENT IN THE W.PC -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SARI KRISHNA AND ANOTHER BY ADV. SRI. R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ R.P.No.156 OF 2011 ------------------------------ Dated this the 9 th day of March, 2011 ORDER As per the judgment dated 23 rd November, 2010, the Writ Petition was allowed and the orders passed by the District Educational Officer, Deputy Director of Education and Director of Public Instruction against the writ petitioners were quashed, relying on the decision in Unni Narayanan v. State of Kerala (2009(2) KLT 604). The District Educational Officer was directed to consider the proposals for approval of appointment of the Writ Petitioners afresh, in the light of the principles laid down in Unni Narayanan's case. The judgment was not complied with. Therefore, the petitioners in the Writ Petition have filed Contempt Case No.299 of 2011 on 7.3.2011. However, on 23.2.2011 respondents 1 to 4 in the Writ Petition filed this Review Petition to review the judgment. The Review R.P.No.156 OF 2011 2 Petition was filed much after the period fixed for complying with the judgment. The reason stated for review is that against the judgment in Unni Narayanan's case and connected cases, SLPs were filed before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court directed that the respondents in those SLP's will continue to receive their salaries/allowances, as per the impugned Government Order till the matters are decided by the Supreme Court. It is submitted that had the order passed by the Supreme Court been brought to the notice of this court, appropriate safeguards would have been provided in the judgment. The learned Government Pleader submitted that atleast there may be a direction to the Writ Petitioners to file an undertaking before the District Educational Officer to the effect that the salary drawn by them would be subject to the result of the decision of the Supreme Court and that if it is found that the petitioners are liable to refund any amount, they would refund the same without any objection. The learned counsel R.P.No.156 OF 2011 3 appearing for the Writ Petitioners(respondents 1 and 2 in the Review Petition) submitted that the Writ Petitioners are prepared to file such an undertaking before the District Educational Officer. These submissions made by the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioners are recorded and the Review Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. The District Educational Officer shall comply with the judgment within fifteen days from the date of submission of the undertaking by the Writ Petitioners. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms