IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 RP.No. 337 of 2008(D) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.33427/2007 .................... PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS IN R.P./ RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN W.P.(C). ----------------- 1. CENTRE FOR EARTH SCIENCE STUDIES, AKKULAM, TVM-31, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR 2. THE DIRECTOR, CENTRE FOR EARTH SCIENCE STUDIES, AKKULAM, TVM-31 BY ADV. SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.P.V.LOHITHAKSHAN SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN R.P./ PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 IN W.P.(C). ------------- 1. DR.KUSALA RAJENDRAN, W/O DR.C.P.RAJENDRAN, FORMER SCIENTIST E2, CENTRE FOR EARTH SCIENCE STUDIES, 33/1273, 'VASUDHA', VATTIYURKAVU P.O., TVM. 2. THE KERALA STATE COUONCIL FOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, SASTHRA BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE P.O., TVM-4, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT 3. EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT THE KERALA STATE COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE,- TECHNOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, SASTHRA BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE P.O., TVM -4. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJESH GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2008, ALONG WITH RP NO. 303 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- R.Ps.337/2008 & 303/2008 in W.P.(C).33427/2007 -------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April, 2008 ORDER I heard learned counsel for the review petitioners Sri.P.V.Lohithakshan, Mr. Thofeek Ahammed and the learned counsel for the writ petitioner Mr.M.R.Rajesh. 2. Counsel for the review petitioners submits that the writ petition was disposed of without considering Rule 12.2 of the Scientists Recruitment and Promotion Rules, at the admission stage. No doubt, writ petition was disposed of at the stage of admission, but it may not be correct to say that Rule 12.2 of the Rules was not considered. The said rule was extracted in Ext.P6, which was challenged in the writ petition. The judgment only directs that the petitioners request be placed before the Managing Committee and it must be considered with reference to the situation prevailing prior to her resignation. 3. Learned counsel for the review Petitioners submits that under Rule 12.2 of the Rules, petitioner will forfeit R.Ps.337 & 303/2008 2 her claim for any benefit by way of promotion, if she resigns from the post. This may be true. But this Court had taken note of the fact that the petitioner had raised a claim for career advancement in 2003 and as an instrumentality of the State, review petitioner normally would be required to consider the claim in accordance with the rules prevailing at that time. Directions issued in the judgment only require the review petitioners to consider the claim of the Original petitioner on merits and not to decline consideration, on the premise that on her resignation, she forfeits her rights to claim any benefit including the benefit in relation to the period when she was in service. 4. Counsel also brings to my notice the fact that the petitioner's resignation has actually been accepted only on 11.12.2007 by the Managing Committee. The judgment of this Court is dated 14.11.2007. 5. I do not find any error on the face of the judgment and it is not a case where a provision, which is binding R.Ps.337 & 303/2008 3 on the parties in question, was shielded from the eyes of this Court. I do not find any grounds to review the judgment. Accordingly, the Review Petitions are dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs