IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2011 / 17TH POUSHA 1932 RP.No. 287 of 2010 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.2233/2008 DATED 19/11/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS 1,2,4 & 7 -------------------------------------------------- 1. SUDHEER.P., PEON, SOIL CONSERVATION OFFICE, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. P.K.MATHEW, LASCAR, OFFICE OF THE SOIL CONSERVATION OFFICE, MANANTHAVADY MINI CIVIL STATION, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD. 3. JOHNY M.G., PEON, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF SOIL CONSERVATION (EH)OFFICE P.B.M. BUILDINGS, MEENANGADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 4. SURESH KUMAR.K.P., LASCAR, OFFICE OF THE SOIL CONSERVATION OFFICE, REVENUE TOWER VI FLOOR, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PANAMPALLI NAGAR) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVACIS R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & Thomas P. Joseph, J. ------------------------------------------ R.P.No.287 of 2010 in W.A. No. 2233 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of January, 2011 ORDER Thomas P. Joseph, J. This petition for review is filed by appellant Nos.1, 2, 4 and 7. They claim to be working as Last Grade Servants in the Soil Conservation Unit of the Agriculture Department. The Public Service Commission invited applications for the post of Agricultural Assistant Grade II in the Agriculture Department by Ext.P1 notification, dated 18.11.2003 as per which 5% of the total vacancies are made available for the Last Grade Servants in the Agriculture Department for appointment by transfer. Petitioners appeared for the written examination and claimed appointment by transfer into the 5% of the total vacancies on the claim that the Soil Conservation Unit in which they are working is part of the Agriculture Department and hence they are entitled to be appointed by transfer. That request was rejected, which was challenged by the petitioners in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The writ petition was dismissed against which petitioners filed W.A.No.2233 of 2008. In the appeal it was contended that Soil Conservation Unit being part of the Agriculture Department, petitioners are entitled to be appointed by transfer in the 5% of the total vacancies as referred to above. That contention was rejected and the writ appeal was dismissed. Now, R.P. No.287 of 2010 - 2 - petitioners on the strength of certain documents they have obtained under the Right to Information Act seek to review the judgment dated 19th November, 2008 in the writ appeal. It is contended by petitioners that the documents received under the said Act would indicate that Soil Conservation Unit is part of the Agriculture Department and hence, judgment dated 19th November, 2008 is liable to be reviewed. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader who took notice on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 3. According to the petitioners, Annexures-A2, A3, A4 and A8 would show that the Soil Conservation Unit is part of the Agriculture Department. Annexure A2 is a questionnaire and Annexure A3 is its answer (dated 21.08.07) where it is stated that the Soil Conservation Unit works under the Agricultural Department as an independent unit. Annexure A4 is again a questionnaire. Annexure-A8 is an order dated 12.3.1969 wherein it is stated that there was a separate Department of Soil Conservation in the State of Travancore-Cochin till 9.10.1956 on which day, the Government redesignated it as Soil Conservation Officer and placed it under the control of the Director of Agriculture. But later, a separate Department of Soil Conservation was created on 7.12.1963. The order further says that the Soil Conservation Department shall be a separate unit of the Agriculture Department under the Director of R.P. No.287 of 2010 - 3 - Agriculture. 4. We are of the view that, the above documents will not help petitioners. For, while considering the writ appeal specific reference was made to Ext.R1(a), order issued by the Government on 7.12.1963 wherein it is stated that the Soil Conservation Unit is a separate unit. Annexure A8 also says that the Soil Conservation Unit is a separate unit of the Agricultural Department. Annexure-1 produced by petitioners along with the writ appeal revealed that for Soil Conservation Unit itself, separate promotion avenues are available. The Division Bench referred to in the judgment for example, appointment in the matter of Field Assistant, and concluded that in the Soil Conservation Unit separate promotion avenues are available. In view of that finding petitioners cannot seek review of the judgment on the strength of the documents produced as Annexures along with the review petition. 5. The writ appeal has been disposed of on a specific finding that the the Soil Conservation Unit has separate promotion avenues and hence the claim of the petitioners that they are entitled to be appointed by transfer into the 5% of the total vacancies cannot be allowed. A review is not a substitute for an appeal nor is an opportunity for a rehearing. There is no error apparent on the face of record to seek a review. Nor are we inclined to think that petitioners could not in R.P. No.287 of 2010 - 4 - spite of exercise of due diligence produce the documents now pressed into service before the appeal was disposed of. We do not find reason to entertain this petition for review. In the result, the review petition fails. It is dismissed. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice Thomas P. Joseph, Judge vns