IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1933 RP.No. 290 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.1543/2009 Dated 02/02/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 3RD PARTY ------------------------------------------------- S.DEEPAKUMARI, AGED 32 YEARS, D/O.SUKUMARA KURUP WORKING AS U.P.S.A., P.G.M.G.H.S., PARAKODE PATHANAMTHITTA RESIDING AT REMALAYAM, EZHAMKULAM, PARAKODE P.O. PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 & PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PATHANAMTHITTA AT THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PIN 689 101 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN 689 645 4. THE MANAGER, P.G.M.G.H.S. PARAKODE, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN 691 554. 5. ARYA ARAVIND, W/O.P.VINOD ANUPAMA AERAM, THADICADU P.O. ANCHAL, KOLLAM, PIN 691 306. 6. T.SMITHA RAJAN, UPSA, P.G.M.G.H.S. PARAKODE P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN 691 554. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------- R.P.No.290 of 2011 in W.P.(C) No.1543 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of March, 2011 ORDER The Review Petitioner seeks to review the judgment dated 2nd February, 2009 in W.P.(C) No.1543 of 2009. 2. W.P.(C) No.38229 of 2008 was filed by one Arya Aravind challenging the order dated 6.12.2008 passed by the District Educational Officer. Smitha Rajan filed W.P.(C) No.1543 of 2009 to implement the order dated 6.12.2008 passed by the District Educational Officer. When the Writ Petitions came up for hearing, it was noticed that Arya Aravind had filed a revision before the Government and that revision was pending. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions were disposed of directing the Government to dispose of the revision filed by Arya Aravind. 2. The petitioner was not a party to W.P.(C) No.38229 of 2008 and W.P.(C) No.1543 of 2009. She says R.P.No.290/2011 IN WPC1543/2009 2 that she is aggrieved by the decision which was taken by the Government later as per the direction of this Court. According to the review petitioner, she is an affected party and she should have been heard by the Government before passing the order. Now the question to be considered is whether the judgment in the two Writ Petitions referred to above requires to be reviewed. No decision which was against the interests of the petitioner was taken in the common judgment dated 2nd February, 2009. The Government have now disposed of the matter. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, she has to challenge that order. It is submitted that the petitioner has already challenged the order passed by the Government in another Writ Petition. Reserving the right of the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the Government, the Review Petition is closed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl