IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2011 / 4TH SRAVANA 1933 RP.No. 1031 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WA.2299/2008 Dated 17/11/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS: RESPONDENTS --------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, O/O.THE DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, THRISSUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI P.A. SALIM RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS -------------------- 1. SILVY VALNTRINA, W/O. JOHNY K.V., KSNDATHIKUDIYIL, CHRIST NAGAR, KARUKUTTY P.O. 2. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRTARY, KERALA PUBLIC COMMISSION, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT OFFICER, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION THRISSUR. 4. MINI VARGHESE, LIVE STOCK INSPECTOR GRADE II, DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, THRISSUR. R1 BY SRI T.P.SAJAN BY ADV. SRI P.C. SASIDHARAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J J. ---------------------------------------- R.P.No.1031 of 2010 in W.A.No. 2299 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated the 26th day of July, 2011 ORDER Ravikumar, J. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the above writ appeal are the review petitioners. This Review Petition has been filed in the wake of an interim order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P(C) No.30733 of 2010 on 7.10.2010 as hereunder:- “ The Additional Chief Secretary shall explain as to how when a Division Bench of this Court held that the petitioner has a fit case for the Government to bestow serious consideration by invoking the power under Section 39 of the Part II of KS & SSR, he can say that the petitioner's case does not appear to be a fit case for invoking Section 39 of KS & SSR. The Additional Chief Secretary himself shall file an affidavit explaining the same within one month”. The contention of the review petitioner is that, till the passing of the interim order dated 7.10.2010 in W.P(C) No.30733 of 2010 by the learned Single Judge, the bona fide impression of the Government was that unhindered and untrammelled by the R.P.No.1031/10 2 observations made by the Division Bench in the judgment in W.A.No.2288/2008 Government could take independent decision pursuant to the direction of the Division Bench, to consider the case of the appellant for appointment to the post of Livestock Grade-II under the Animal Husbandry Department against the defence service personnel quota based on the rank held by him in the PSC List that came into force on 31.12.2002 under Rule 39 of Part-II of the KS & SSR. It is with the said impression that the Government have passed G.O(Rt) No.1426/10/AD dated 5.8.2010 rejecting the request of the appellant, it is contended. Relying on the decisions of the Honourable Apex Court in Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab {(1999) 7 SCC 209}, Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India (AIR 1991 SC 284) and in Union of India v. Narendra Singh (2008 AIR SCW 109), it is contended that this court cannot usurp the powers of the Government under Rule 39 of Part-II of KS & SSR and that this Court cannot substitute its satisfaction for the satisfaction of the Government. 2. In the context of the above mentioned contentions , we may refer to the observations and direction made by the Division Bench in the judgment dated 17.11.2009 in W.A.No.2299 of R.P.No.1031/10 3 2008. In paragraph 5 of the said judgment, the Division Bench held that, it is a fit case for the Government to bestow serious consideration by invoking the power under Rule 39 of Part-II of KS & SSR. To hold that a particular case is a fit case for the government to bestow serious consideration by invoking the power under Rule 39 of Part-II of KS & SSR and to hold that one is entitled to get a favourable order under the said rule are different and distinct. It is after acknowledging the position that the Government is the authority competent to invoke the power under Rule 39 of Part-II of KS and SSR, that the appellant/petitioner was directed to file a proper representation before the Government and the Government were directed to pass appropriate orders on such representation. Thus, it is obvious that this Court as per the judgment in W.A.No.2299 of 2008, the observation made is only to the effect that it is a fit case for the Government to bestow serious consideration by invoking the power under Rule 39 of Part-II of KS & SSR admitting the fact that the Government is the authority to bestow such serous consideration and pass appropriate orders. A scanning of the judgment in W.A.No.2299/2008 would reveal that, this Court R.P.No.1031/10 4 has not given any specific direction that the appellant/petitioner should be given the benefit by invoking the provisions under Rule 39. This is deducible from the judgment of the Division Bench dated 17.11.2009 in W.A.No.2299 of 2008 itself. In view of the said position we are unable to accept the contention that error is apparent on the face of the said proceedings calling for correction by invoking the review jurisdiction. Subject to the said observation, this Review Petition is closed. Needless to say that in the circumstances, W.P.C.No.30773 of 2010 has to be posted before the Single Bench for consideration, on merits. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE C.T. RAVIKUMAR , JUDGE kvm/- R.P.No.1031/10 5