IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 RP.No. 1042 of 2008(R) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.28507/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 2ND RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------- THE MANAGER, K.P.M.H.S.S. CHERIAVELINALLOOR, KOTTARAKKARA, QUILON. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3. ------------------------------------------------ 1. SMT. SHERLEY, RAJAM NIVAS, THOTTAKKADU P.O., KALLAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING SANTHINAGER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR R2, R3 BY GOVT. PELADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2009, THE COURT ON 23/01/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- R.P.No.1042 OF 2008 IN W.P(C).No.28507 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2009 O R D E R Recalled the order dated 22.01.2009. 1. This review petition is by the second respondent in the writ petition, the Manager of an aided school. The writ petitioner's husband was working as a Lab Assistant against a supernumerary post in that school. He is stated to have committed suicide. The petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate basis. That matter led to the writ petition. After haring counsel for parties, on 30.7.2008, that writ petition was ordered directing the Government to consider the issue. That was necessitated because of the allegation that appointment against a supernumerary post on compassionate grounds may require the concurrence of the Government. In the manner in which she was placed at that point of time, the petitioner, through counsel, also stated that she was even prepared to work as a menial. That request was also recorded. RP.1042/08 Page numbers 2. But the fact of the matter appears to be that even before the judgment was issued on 30.7.2008, the Government had issued, on 29.7.2008, an order directing appointment of the writ petitioner as an L.D.Clerk. That is Annexure I produced along with this review petition. The Manager filed a writ petition before this Court and obtained Annexure II order of stay of operation of Annexure I order. 3. The aforesaid facts would show that if the judgment sought to be reviewed continue to hold the field, it would only result in an anomalous situation and lack of clarity in the proceedings. Hence, I deem it appropriate that the judgment sought to be reviewed is recalled. 4. In the result, without prejudice to the right of the writ petitioner to stand by Annexure I order and without prejudice to the right of the parties to contentions in the writ petition in which Annexure II order of stay has been issued, the judgment RP.1042/08 Page numbers sought to be reviewed is hereby recalled. The review petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.