IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2011 / 19TH SRAVANA 1933 RP.No. 504 of 2011(J) -------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.16337/2009 Dated 09/07/2010 .................... PETITIONER/5TH RESPONDENT ------------------------------------- THE MANAGER, HIGH SCHOOL, THIRUVALAYANNUR, KALLUR- VADAKKEKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M. VANI, W/O. K.V. MOHAN DAS, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, HIGH SCHOOL, THIRUVALAYANNUR, KALLUR-VADAKKEKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT-679562. 2. C.J. JOPHY, W/O. K.J.SUNNY, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, HIGH SCHOOL, THIRUVALAYANNUR, KALLUR- VADAKKEKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT-679562. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 4. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM-695014. 5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, AYYANTHOLE-THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 003. 6. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680506. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. V.A. MUHAMMED R3 TO R6 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs RP. NO.504/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A:COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF K.C.BALAN ISSUED BY THE PERINJANAM GRAMAPANCHAYATH DATED 22/09/2009. ANNEXURE B:COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B5-5133/10/K.D. IS DATED 16/08/2010. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- R.P. NO. 504 OF 2011 IN W.P.(C).No. 16337 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August, 2011 ORDER This Review Petition is directed against the judgment of this Court dated 9.7.2010 in W.P.(C).No.16337 of 2009. The fifth respondent in the Writ Petition is the review petitioner. The said Writ Petition was admitted on 12.6.2009 and urgent notice was ordered to all respondents including the review petitioner. Taking note of the fact that even after the receipt of notice in the Writ Petition, the fifth respondent had not chosen to enter appearance, this Court passed an order in I.A.No.6249/2010 on 26.5.2010. Even thereafter, the said order was not complied with and at the same time, the fifth respondent had not chosen to enter appearance and to contest the matter. It is in the said circumstances that this Court was constrained to dispose of the Writ Petition as per judgment dated 9.7.2010. This review petition has been filed after about one year since the disposal of the said Writ Petition. Precisely, there is a delay of 366 days in filing the review petition. As already noticed hereinbefore, even after the receipt of notice R.P.504 of 2011 in W.P.(C)16337 of 2009 2 in the Writ Petition, the fifth respondent had not chosen to enter appearance. It is the failure on the part of the fifth respondent in contesting the matter or to comply with directions in the interim order that constrained this Court to deliver the judgment dated 9.7.2010 which is, now, sought to be reviewed. The long delay of 366 days has not been satisfactorily explained by the fifth respondent. That apart, when this matter is taken up for consideration today, learned Government Pleader submitted that the directions in the aforesaid judgment have already been complied with. Add to it, a perusal of the review petition would reveal that the review petitioner has not brought out any error apparent on the face of the records so as to persuade this Court to invoke the review jurisdiction. In fact, the grounds raised in this review petition would reveal that the review petitioner is challenging the correctness of the aforesaid judgment itself. In other words, it is an appeal in disguise. On the ground of inordinate delay in filing this review petition, I am not inclined to condone the delay and consequently, the Review Petition is also dismissed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc R.P.504 of 2011 in W.P.(C)16337 of 2009 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 R.P.504 of 2011 in W.P.(C)16337 of 2009 4