IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2010 / 11TH JYAISTHA 1932 RP.No. 317 of 2010(T) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.30613/2008 Dated 21/12/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN WPC: ------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR. 4. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, THALASSERY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENT 5 IN WPC: ------------------------------------------------ 1. RANJINI.P., HSA, (HINDI) NAMHSS, PERINGATHUR, THALASSERY KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE MANAGER, NAMHSS, PERINGATHUR, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. SMT. JAYASREE MANOJ R2 BY ADV. SHRI K.V. SOHAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.317/2010 in W.P.(C) No. 30613 of 2008 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of June, 2010. JUDGMENT Heard learned Govt. Pleader appearing for the review petitioners, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and learned counsel for the Manager. 2. This review petition is filed seeking a review of the interim order passed in W.P.(C) No.30613/2008. It is contended that the view taken by this Court while passing the interim order is without properly considering the effect of the circulars, viz. Annexures I and II. 3. The issue was considered in detail by this Court while passing the interim order. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that going by Exts.P19 and P20 judgments of this Court, it can be seen that the obligation of the Manager under the relevant provisions, is only to appoint one protected teacher. It is therefore submitted that the circulars cannot whittle down the statutory scheme and provide something more than what is envisaged under the rules. In Ext.P20 judgment, in para 5 it was held that “Therefore, the obligation of the Manager is mainly to appoint one protected teacher in the school.” rp 317/2010 2 4. In that view of the matter, this Court need not go into the points sought to be raised in the review petition, whether the circulars as such apply to the fact situation. Apart from that, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Manager, there is no apparent error in the order. The interim order passed is one pending the writ petition. For all these reasons, the review petition is dismissed. The writ petition will be posted for hearing in the regular court. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/