IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2009 / 23RD POUSHA 1930 RP.No. 851 of 2008(E) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WA.2393/2007 Dated 07/11/2007 .................... REVIEW APPLICANT/APPELLANT/1ST PETITIONER IN WP(C): ---------------------- SREEJITH KUZHIKANDY, LPSA, CHERUPAZHASSI ALP SCHOOL, KUZHIKANDY HOUSE, PO.,CHATTUKKAPARA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS & 2ND PETITIONER IN THE W.P.(C): -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANNUR. 5. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TALIPARAMBA SOUTH, P.O., TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 6. VEENA P, DEVI VILAS, KADOOR P.O., CHEDUPAZHASSI, KOLENCHERY (VIA), KANNUR - 670 601 7. C.O.SANTHAKUMARI CHENGOONI ODAYOTH, P.O., KOLACHERY, PERUMACHERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. (CNTD....2) RP.No. 851 of 2008(E) -2- 8. P.C.SUDHEER, MANAGER, CHERUPAZHASSI ALP SCHOOL, P.O., CHERUPAZHASSI, (VIA) KOLACHERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN FOR R8 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA SRI.V.A.MOHAMMED FOR RESPONDENTS. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY, Ag.CJ & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. =========================== R.P.No.851 of 2008 - E in W.A.No.2393 of 2007 =============================== Dated this the 13th day of January, 2009. O R D E R Koshy, Ag.CJ. In the judgment under review, Division Bench was considering the correctness of Ext.P20 order passed by the Government regarding the sanction of an additional division. It has been stated that, one Veena has already been appointed by Ext.P23 order dated 18.11.2004, she gets the benefits of Rule 51-A claim and approval. Thereafter, it is stated that, therefore approval was wrongly granted as against 6th respondent. That is only the contention raised. Thereafter, the Division Bench has stated as follows: “Correctness or otherwise of the approval to appointment of 6th respondent Veena is not the subject matter of this writ petition. Hence we express no opinion with regard to the grant of approval by the Asst. Educational Officer. So far as this case is concerned the only question that has come up before us is whether Ext.P20 order passed by the Government is legal or not, which in our view is not tainted with any illegality.” R.P.No.851 of 2008 - E 2 2. Therefore, it can be seen that no final opinion was expressed regarding the grant of approval or 51-A rights of any of the teachers. That has to be decided by the appropriate authority or court untrammelled by any of the observations made in the judgment under review. The review petition is disposed of as above. J.B.KOSHY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-