IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2009 / 15TH SRAVANA 1931 RP.No. 522 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.22707/2005 Dated 11/02/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2. KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES, COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, STATE OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR KHADI, AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES, IRLA KHADI, VILE PARLE WEST, MUMBAI. 4. DIRECTOR OF KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION, STATE OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.KESAVAN KUTTY,SC,KVIC RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. AYYANAR, S/O. KARUPPANAN, AGED 54 YEARS, EX-PEON, ALAM ARATHI, ALAM ARATHUPATTI, THIRUTHANGAL VIA, VIRUDHUNAGAR, TAMIL NADU. 2. MUTHU PANDIAN, S/O. AYYANAD, AGED 29, RESIDING AT ALAM ARATHU, ALAM ARATHUPATTI, THIRUHANGAL VIA, VIRUDHUNAGAR, TAMIL NADU. ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA FOR R1-2 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ON 03/08/2009, ALONG WITH RP NO. 524 OF 2009 THE COURT ON 6.8.2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.522/2009 in W.P.(C) No.22707/2005-C & R.P.No.524/2009 in 8829/2005-A - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of August, 2009. O R D E R The review petitions arise from the common judgment rendered by this court in the two writ petitions, viz. W.P.(C) Nos.8829/2005 & 22707/2005. Learned counsel for the review petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondents addressed arguments on the review petitions. 2. In the judgment, this court had directed the respondents to consider the claim for appointment of the petitioners in accordance with the scheme for compassionate appointment and in accordance with their qualifications and eligibility and depending upon the availability of suitable vacancies. It was also directed that if there are no sufficient vacancies in the particular office, the method pointed out in sub clauses (c) and (f) of clause 7 of Annexure R4(a) could be adopted. 3. The review petitions are filed mainly on the following grounds. Ext.R4(a) has been modified by Annexures 1 and 2 dated 3.12.1999 and 5.5.2003. Therefore, they have to be read together. In fact, this aspect could RP Nos.522 & 524 of 2009 2 not be brought to the notice of this court by filing an additional counter affidavit. It is further pointed out that Annexures 8, 9 and 10 would show that the claim of the petitioners were considered. It is also pointed out that the Khadi and Village Industries Commission is not a department of the Union of India, it is only a statutory body and therefore it cannot utilise the vacant posts of other Ministries for considering the claim of the petitioners in such vacancies as directed by this court. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is pointed out that a review petition as now filed, cannot be sustainable, as the review petitioners actually want a rehearing of the matter which is not permissible, going by the express provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. There is no apparent error on the face of the records. But the review petitioners want a rehearing and their remedy is to file an appeal against the judgment. 5. To have a quietus of the issue, it is thought fit to consider the additional documents produced by the review petitioners and their effect on the claim of the writ petitioners. It will show the following: Annexure A1 prescribes the time limit for considering a person's name for making compassionate appointment as one year. But it is clearly specified therein that in respect of other really deserving cases the Committee should only RP Nos.522 & 524 of 2009 3 recommend taking up the matter with other Ministries/Departments/Offices of the Government of India to consider those cases for appointment there as provided in paragraph 7(f). True that Annexure A2 fixes the outer limit as three years. In fact, the related aspects have been considered in the judgment. Ext.R4(A) cannot be said to have been superseded by these documents. It is true that in Annexures A8, A9 and A10 the claim of the writ petitioners have been considered. A reading of the same shows that their claims have not been rejected on merits, but want of sufficient vacancies alone is the main reason for not granting appointment to them. This is clear from internal page 3 of Annexure A8 which states that the Committee also recommended to reject some of the applications received for compassionate appointment on the ground that there is no vacancy to consider their requests in terms of DOPT guidelines and give them regret reply. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that the claims have been individually considered on their merits and rejected. 6. Along with I.A.No.357/2009 in in R.P.No.522/2009 the review petitioners have produced Annexures A11 to A13 also. Annexure A11 is only an internal communication between the Ministry and the review petitioners. Annexure A12 is an Office Memorandum dated 22.6.2001 RP Nos.522 & 524 of 2009 4 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel (Public Grievances and Pension) Department of Personnel and Training. It only concerns one aspect, i.e. since 5% ceiling is prescribed for compassionate appointment, there are no spare vacancies left to accommodate the requests from other Ministries/Departments/Offices for such appointment. Annexure A13 is a letter issued by the Ministry to the review petitioner. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners that since there are no sufficient vacancies available with the review petitioners for providing appointments to the deserving applicants, the remedy of the writ petitioners is to approach the DOPT, viz. the Department of Personnel and Training and seek redressal of their grievances. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners submitted that the petitioners cannot directly move the said Ministry since such an application will be treated only as a fresh one. Therefore, it is upto the review petitioners to recommend their cases to the Ministry for consideration in vacancies in other departments. 8. Therefore, the review petitions are disposed of in the following manner: The directions issued already will be adhered to with the following RP Nos.522 & 524 of 2009 5 modifications. If there are no sufficient vacancies available with the review petitioners, they will forward the applications of the writ petitioners along with their recommendation to the Department of Personnel and Training for appropriate action, so that the claim of the writ petitioners will get due consideration for appointment in other departments. Since the time limit originally fixed by this court in the judgment is over, appropriate action will be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The review petitions are disposed of with the above directions. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/