IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2009 / 23RD POUSHA 1930 RP.No. 1017 of 2008(M) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.2440/2008 Dated 21/01/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): THIRD PARTY --------------------------------- DR.P.N.JAYASINGH, SENIOR MEDICAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE DISTRICTMEDICAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------- 1. DR.G.RAJENDRAN, SENIOR MEDICAL OFFICER (SPECIALIST), GOVERNMENT AYURVEDA HOSPITAL, KADAMBANAD, PATHANAMTHITTA 2. DR.R.B.RAMADEVI, SENIOR MEDICAL OFFICER (SPECIALIST), GOVERNMENT AYURVEDA HOSPITAL, NEYYATINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DR.S.UNNIKRISHNAN NAMBOODIRI, MEDICAL OFFICER (VISHA), GOVERNMENT AYURVEDA HOSPITAL, NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE (HIGHER), INDIAN SYSTEMS OF MEDICINE DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR AND SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GP SMT.LAKSHMI RANI THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- R.P.1017/2008 in W.P.(C).2440/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January, 2009 ORDER Petitioner, who was not a party to the judgment, seeks review of the same. I have only directed the first respondent to consider the request made in Exts.P6 and P7 and take appropriate action to see that the Departmental Promotion Committee is convened for the post of District Medical Officer, Chief Medical Officer and Senior Medical Officer (Specialists) in the department of Ayurveda taking note of Ext.P2 judgment, within three months. 2. I make it clear that I have not considered the contentions on merits. Therefore, I do not find any grounds to review the judgment. I also take note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that a petition for review filed by the State was also dismissed. I further make it clear that if any right, which has accrued in favour of the review petitioner, is sought to be affected, either at the time R.P.1017/08 2 of convening the DPC or any other action in consequence thereof, then, obviously he is entitled to notice and hearing before such action is taken. Review petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs