IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2011 / 27TH ASHADHA 1933 RP.No. 486 of 2011(B) in W.P.(C) NO.27109 OF 2007 REVIEW PETITIONERS: RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 1. DEEPA M.R., M.R.ARUN VIHAR, VEMB, MONNOORKONAM P.O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MAYA G.NAIR, GIRIJA VILASAM, ELAMANNOORKONAM, NARUVAMMOODU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 020. 3. KUMARI MEERA R.O., SOUPARNIKA, THIRUTHUPARAMBU, JAYAPRAKASH LANE, KUDAPPANAKUNNU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 043 BY ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 1. ABDU SSAMED V., HSST JUNIOR (HINDI), GOVERNMENT RAJAHS, KOTTAKKAL P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.MANU THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ REVIEW PETITION. NO.486 OF 2011 in W.P.(C) NO.27109 OF 2007 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of July, 2011 O R D E R Respondents 3 to 5 in W.P.(C) No.27109 of 2007 are the review petitioners. They seek to review the judgment dated 12.8.2008 in W.P. (C) No.27109 of 2007. The review petitioners were impleaded as additional respondents 3 to 5 in the Writ Petition and they were heard. 2. The grounds raised in the Review Petition are the following: “A. It is well settled that review petitioners are fully qualified for the post of H.S.S.T. Hindi. They are entitled to get appointment to the post that remains vacant on the day preceedings the day of declaration of probation of H.S.S.T.Junior. B. In other words H.S.S.T. Juniors are entitled to get appointment only in respect of vacancies that will come into existence after the declaration of probation the posts shown in Annexure-I list came into existence when petitioners remains qualified, hence they are entitled to get appointment to that post.” REVIEW PETITION. NO.486 OF 2011 in W.P.(C) NO.27109 OF 2007 :: 2 :: 3. These contentions have been dealt with in the judgment sought to be reviewed. It was held that the writ petitioners are entitled to get their probation declared and the delay in declaring the probation would not stand in the way of considering their claim for appointment as Higher Secondary School Teacher, invoking Rule 3 of the Special Rules. 4. Under the guise of a Review Petition, matters considered already in the Writ Petition cannot be varied or reversed. There is no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or any sufficient reason to review the judgment. 5. The learned counsel for the review petitioners attempted to raise certain new contentions which were not raised in defence to the Writ Petition and which were not raised also in the Review Petition. I decline to entertain such contentions. The Review Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/