IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2008 / 6TH ASHADHA 1930 RP.No. 370 of 2008(S) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.5559/2008 Dated 25/02/2008 OA.250/2005 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS ----------------------------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI. 2. THE COMMANDER WORKS ENGINEER(AF), SOUTH BELLARY ROAD, JC NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-6. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, MILITARY ENGINEER, SERVICES, HEADQUARTERS SOUTHERN COMMAND, PUNE. 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER(NAVAC), NAVAL ACADEMY, KOCHI-4. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT ----------------------- D.RAJENDRAN, S/O DAMODARAN, GR D MAZDOOR, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT GARRISON ENGINEER(ELECTRICAL & MECHANICAL) C/O GARRISON ENGINEER, FORT KOCHI, R/AT DAD RESIDENTAL COMPLEX, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6. BY THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.T.SANKARAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------- R.P.No.370 OF 2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of June, 2008 O R D E R ~~~~~~~ The review petitioners are writ petitioners. The review petition is filed on several grounds. But, the point urged before us is that, the respondent/applicant was over-aged for recruitment from among departmental candidates. That point was considered by us, while the writ petition was disposed of, in paragraph 2 of the judgment under review. We did not accept the contention of the writ petitioners. We have given reasons also for the same. It was a judgment dictated in open court after hearing the petitioners. The point now sought to be raised is that since the vacancies for which selection process was initiated were unreserved vacancies, the candidates are not entitled to get any age relaxation, even if they belong to SC, ST or OBC. That point was not raised before us when the writ petition was heard. For not considering a point not raised before us, the judgment cannot be reviewed. If our judgment is wrong, the remedy of the review petitioners is to file an appeal. Going by the well R.P.No.370/2008 2 settled principles governing the review of a judgment, we find no ground has been raised warranting the review of the judgment. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE) ps