IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 RP.No. 586 of 2009(N) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.24916/2008 Dated 23/10/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- SHAJI.C.SENAN,JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT (UNDER SUSPENSION AND UNDER ORDERS OF REVERSION TO CALICUT UNIVERSITY) OFFICE OF THE DIRECATOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RESIDING AT INDIRA MANDIRAM, MARKET ROAD, ATTINGAL THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- 1. JEEJAMOL K.C.,KADUVAPPARACKAL HOUSE THODUPUZHA P.O., IDUKKI -686584. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. KC. SANTHOSH KUMAR SC FOR PSC SRI. ALEXANDER THOMAS THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- R.P.No. 586/09 in WP(c).No.24916/08 ------------------------ Dated this the Ist day of July, 2009. O R D E R Heard the Senior Counsel for the Review Petitioner. 2. It is pointed out that, acting upon the observations made in the judgment, the petitioner has been placed under suspension as per Annexure-II and he has also been reverted to the parent department as per Annexure-III. Counsel also points out that, the observations made in the judgment, on the basis of the submissions made by the Learned Government Pleader, were unwarranted, especially in view of the contents of Annexure-I, the instructions given by the Director, HSST. 3. As is evident from the judgment itself, it was only on the basis of the submissions made in the court, the judgment was rendered mentioning the name of the review petitioner. It being so, the observations made in the judgment by itself cannot, in the absence of other evidence, RP.No.586/09 /2/ work to in the prejudice of the petitioner. Therefore, it is clarified that, any action taken against the Review Petitioner has to be based on independent evidence and not the observations in the judgment. Review petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ RP.No.586/09 /2/