IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 31ST BHADRA 1933 RP.No. 622 of 2011() -------------------- [AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.860/2010 DT.30.7.2010] REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.4 ------------------------------------- MANAGER, S.S.M.U.P SCHOOL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT AND RESPONDENTS 1-3 AND 5-6 ---------------------------------------------------- 1. PREETHA.J.W, CHADAYAVILAKOM, CHRIST BHAVAN, PARASUVAKKAL, PARASUVAKKAL.P.O, NEYYATINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 501. 2. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 3. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014. 4. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KATTAKADA, TRIVANDRUM- 695 125. 5. P. BINDU, U.P SCHOOL ASSISTANT, S.S.M.U.P.S POOZHANAD.P.O, TRIVANDRUM- 695 125. 6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION (H) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. GOVT.PLEADER, SMT.T.B.RAMANI THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/09/2011, ALONG WITH R.P.No.629/2011, THE COURT ON 22/09/2011 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.P.No.622/2011 APPENDIX ANNEXURE-A: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C/2123/2011/DIS. DATED 6.6.2011 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------ R.P.Nos.622 & 629 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2011 C O M M O N O R D E R ~~~~~~~~~~~ P.S.Gopinathan, J. The common review petitioner is the 4th respondent in the appeal. The review petitioner is running an aided school. The mother of the 1st respondent in R.P.622/2011 was working as a Headmistress in the School. The 1st respondent in R.P.622/2011 is the 4th respondent in the other R.P. (herein after she is referred as the 'contesting respondent'). The mother of the contesting respondent died in harness on 15.7.2001. Though she applied for compassionate appointment under Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA of the KER, the claim was declined by the review petitioner. The contesting respondent, thereupon, approached the Committee of the Kerala Legislator for Welfare of Women, Children and Physically handicapped, which after an elaborate enquiry found that the claim of the contesting respondent is justified. Accordingly, request was made to the Government to issue orders directing the review petitioner to give appointment to the contesting respondent under compassionate ground. In R.P.No.622 & 629/2011 2 pursuance to that direction, orders were issued directing the review petitioner to give appointment. Assailing the said order, W.P.(C)36445/2008 was preferred. Since there was failure to comply with the order issued by the Government directing the review petitioner to give appointment, the contesting respondent preferred W.P.(C) No.1495/2009. While allowing the former Writ Petition, the order impugned was set aside. Consequently, the Writ Petition filed by the contesting respondent was dismissed. Assailing the judgment in both the Writ Petitions, the Writ Appeals were preferred by the contesting respondent. By common judgment dated 30.7.2010, both Writ Appeals were allowed. While dismissing the Writ Petition preferred by the review petitioner, the other petition preferred by the contesting respondent was allowed and the review petitioner was directed to issue order appointing the contesting respondent to a deserving post in the next arising vacancy in the school managed by the review petitioner. Now these review petitions were filed with a delay of 348 days with a plea that the former Manager was ailing and had been undergoing treatment from 25.5.2010 to 24.5.2011 and that the review petitioner assumed charge on R.P.No.622 & 629/2011 3 24.5.2011 and thereafter, he came across the judgment impugned. With this plea, the delay of 348 days in filing the Review Petition was sought to be condoned. 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader. 3. Though we, prima facie, find no good reason to condone the inordinate delay, the learned counsel was permitted to advance arguments on merits and heard in detail. Therefore, the petition to condone the delay is allowed. 4. The fact that the mother of the contesting respondent died in harness and that, provided the conditions are satisfied, the contesting respondent is entitled to get employment on compassionate ground is not disputed. The only dispute that was raised is that there was no timely application made by the contesting respondent. It was also argued that the income of the contesting respondent was more than Rs.1.5 lakh and that the income limit to get employment under compassionate ground R.P.No.622 & 629/2011 4 being Rs.1.5 lakh, the contesting respondent is not entitled to get employment under compassionate ground. We have considered the above two contentions and by speaking judgment found against the review petitioner. The argument now advanced is nothing in addition to the grounds which were rejected earlier. We find no error or illegality in the judgment impugned so as to be rectified in exercise of the review powers. Therefore, both the Review Petitions are dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) ( P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ps/7/9 R.P.No.622 & 629/2011 5