IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.THANKAPPAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2007 / 25TH ASWINA 1929 RP.No. 320 of 2004(D) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.6963/2000 Dated 11/03/2004 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/5TH RESPONDENT: --------------------------------- K.S.GRACY, H.S.A. (NATURAL SCIENCE), PIUS GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, EDAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUGATHAN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4: --------------------------------------------- 1. E.M.ROSE, H.S.A. (SOCIAL STUDIES), PIUS GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, EDAPPALLY. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SRI.S.GIRIJATHMAJAN, ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. 5. THE MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, ST.GEORGE FORANE CHURCH, EDAPPALLY. R2 TO R4-BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.PUZHAKKARA MOHAMMED R1-BY SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/10/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. THANKAPPAN, J. ------------------------------------------ R. P.NO.320 OF 2004 in O.P.NO.6963 OF 2000- D ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of October, 2007. O R D E R Heard. 2. By the judgment dated 11th March, 2004, this Court directed the 3rd respondent, the District Educational Officer, Ernakulam, to approve appointment of the petitioner as HSA Social Studies. That order was on the basis of the promotion which the petitioner was entitled under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules. The above judgment was also on the basis of Ext.P7 writ appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the review petitioner relying on Annexure-II circular contended that the order has to be reviewed as the review petitioner will be liable to be retrenched and should go for protection under Rule 51 A of Rules. The circular which relies on by the review petitioner also protects such a position. In the above circumstances, the judgment requires no interference R.P.NO.320/2004 . 2 by way of review. Hence, review petitions stands dismissed. K. THANKAPPAN, JUDGE. cl R.P.NO.320/2004 . 3