IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2009 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RP.No. 1199 of 2009 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.586/2008 Dated 17/09/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT IN THE W.A.: ---------------------- NAJEEB A., NIZAR MANZIL, DAVIPURA, PERINGAMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SRI.BINDU SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6: --------------- 1. J.J.ARSHAD BEEGUM, PRESENTLY WORKING AS L.D.TYPIST, IQBAL COLLEGE, PERINGAMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE MANAGER, IQBAL COLLEGE, PERINGAMALA. 6. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOLLAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU FOR R2 TO R4 & R6 M/S..KOSHY P.THOMAS & SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL FOR R1 SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN FOR R5 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2009, ALONG WITH R.P. NO.1201/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------ R.P. No.1199/2009 IN W.A.No.586/2008 & R.P.No.1201/2009 IN W.A.No.587/2008 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 17th day of December, 2009 Order Balakrishnan Nair, J. R.P.No.1199/2009: The 1st respondent in W.A.No.586/2008 is the review petitioner. The said appeal was allowed by this Court and the Writ Petition filed by the review petitioner was dismissed. But, that dismissal was subject to the directions issued in the connected case, W.A.No.587/2008. 2. The learned senior counsel Sri.V.N.Achutha Kurup, who appeared for the review petitioner, submitted that though the review petitioner was appointed for the spell from 1.4.1997 to 30.9.1997 as L.D. Clerk, the same was not approved and salary was not paid to him. He had an earlier spell of service, which is already approved and therefore, he has received salary for that period. The judgment under review is silent regarding the claim RP Nos.1199 & 1201/2009 - 2 - of the review petitioner for approval of his appointment and payment of salary from 1.4.1997 to 30.9.1997. Therefore, the learned senior counsel prayed for review of the judgment. 3. This Court, while disposing of W.A.No.587/2008, issued the following directions: “1. It is declared that the appellant is entitled to get the first vacancy, that arose in the cadre of Upper Division Clerk, on or after 12.3.1995, the date on which Statute 41was amended, including Lower Division Typist also, in the feeder category for promotion to the post of LD Clerk. 2. The appointments of LD Clerks made after 12.3.1995 are ab initio void, having been made ignoring the claim of the appellant. It is so declared. 3. The third respondent is directed to appoint the appellant as LD Clerk in the first vacancy that arose after 12.3.1995 and forward the necessary appointment order to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent shall take necessary steps to approve her appointment. 4. The appointments of LD Clerks made after 12.3.1995 shall be regulated with reference to the dates of occurrence of vacancies that arose after accommodating the appellant as above and approval of their appointments shall be modified accordingly. The salary, if any, paid to them need not be recovered, even if it is found that they were not eligible to get appointment from the date they were appointed and their appointments were approved. RP Nos.1199 & 1201/2009 - 3 - 5. The appointment of the appellant from the date of occurrence of the first vacancy between 12.3.1995 and 1.9.1999 shall be notional. But, her salary shall be re-fixed and arrears of salary, if any, found due from 1.9.1999 shall be released to her within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment.” We are of the view that the above directions will govern the approval of appointment of the review petitioner also. Since the 1st respondent/appellant has to be accommodated in the first vacancy that arose after 12.3.1995, the dates of appointment of the subsequent appointees will have to be appropriately modified, having regard to the vacancies available. So, if there is a vacancy available to accommodate the review petitioner between 1.4.1997 and 30.9.1997, the Manager will accommodate him in that vacancy and the competent authority will approve his appointment and pay him salary. That will depend upon the availability of vacancies. So, this Court could not have issued any direction to approve the appointment of the review petitioner for the period from 1.4.1997 to 30.9.1997. We have left it to the competent authorities to deal with the claim. If they wrongly deal with his claim, he can work RP Nos.1199 & 1201/2009 - 4 - out his remedy against the same. We find no error apparent on the face of the record, warranting review of the judgment. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed. 4. R.P.No.1201/2009: In view of the order in R.P.No.1199/2009, this Review Petition is also dismissed. K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P. Bhavadasan, Judge. nm.