IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 33006 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. T.SAHAYADAS, SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KSEB, PETTAH , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SHIBU.V.S, SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KSEB, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. RENJITH K.R, SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KSEB, T.C.SECTION, VELI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. R.SIVAKUMAR, SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KSEB, UTCHAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. J.MOHAN DAS SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KSEB, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.AYYOOBUKHAN SRI.SUNNY ZACHARIA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VYDUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VYDUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. V.G.GOPAN, SUB ENGINEER 110 KV SUB STATION, PARUTHIPARA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 4. E.RAJAN, SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, PEYAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 5. N.SREEDHARAN, SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, EAST KALLADA, KOLLAM., SC SRI. K.S. ANIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.33006 OF 2009 (U) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P1, an order issued by the first respondent on 7.11.1009. According to the petitioners in pursuance to this order, promotions granted to them way back in 1999 are sought to be cancelled. It is also stated that these promotions were ordered on the strength of Exts.P3 and P4 judgments. 2. However, a reading of Ext.P1 itself shows that this order has been issued in pursuance to the directions of this court in the judgment W.A. No.447/2005, a copy of which is Ext.P15. As averred in the writ petition, petitioners have also sought review of the judgment by filing R.P.No.933/09, a copy of which is Ext.P16. Thus it is evident that, Ext.P1 is issued in implementation of Ext.P15 judgment in the writ appeal referred to above and also that though the petitioners have filed a review petition Ext.P16 and no stay of the judgment has been obtained. In such circumstances this court will not be justified in entertaining the writ petition challenging WPC.No.33006 /09 :2 : Ext.P1. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioners to seek remedies against the writ appeal judgment, the writ petition is closed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/