IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944
RP NO. 557 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 14905/2019 OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER :
DIVYA P G, AGED 40 YEARS
D/O. GOVINDAN P, PADINJARATH PISHARAM,
CHITTILAPILLY P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN 680 551.
BY ADVS.
BABU S. NAIR
SMITHA BABU
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 006.
3 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
KUTTIPURAM, PIN 679 571.
4 THE MANAGER,
KVUPS, VADAKKUMBARAM,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676 552.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
RP NO. 557 OF 2022
2
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
...........................................
R.P.No.557 of 2022
in
W.P.(C) No.14905 of 2019
.....................................
Dated this the 6 th day of July, 2022
ORDER
This review petition is filed seeking to review judgment dated 14.03.2022 to the extent the liberty to challenge an order issued by the Government on 21.04.2021 was not reserved.
2. The writ petition was filed in the year 2019, seeking a direction to implement the Government Order dated 14.02.2019 and for directions to issue orders of approval of appointment of the petitioner. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, the Assistant Educational Officer issued an order rejecting the approval of the petitioner, which was challenged before the statutory authorities. All those challenges were rejected. Finally by order dated 21.04.2021, the Government rejected the revision petition filed by the Manager, thereby confirming the order refusing to approve the petitioner.
3. Since the aforementioned order of 21.04.2021 was issued RP NO. 557 OF 2022 3 during the pendency of the writ petition and the same had given rise to a fresh cause of action, the writ petition was requested to be withdrawn and the said request was granted as per the order under review.
4. Review petitioner now apprehends that, since the petitioner is not granted permission to file a fresh writ petition, the review petitioner may be prejudiced if she prefers a fresh writ petition challenging the Government Order No.G.O.[Rt] No.2626/2021/Gen.Edn. Dated 21.04.2021.
5. I have considered the contention of the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader.
6. Since the 4 th respondent and the review petitioner are sailing together, notice to the 4 th respondent shall stand dispensed with.
7. On a perusal of the judgment under review, I notice that all what this Court had observed was that the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Since the present grievance of the petitioner is with respect to a cause of action that arose subsequent to the filing of W.P.(C) No.14905/2019, notwithstanding the dismissal of the writ RP NO. 557 OF 2022 4 petition as withdrawn, the petitioner is entitled to challenge the G.O. dated 21.04.2021, if it is otherwise permissible under the law.
8. However, since petitioner apprehends prejudice on account of the withdrawal of the writ petition without liberty to file a fresh writ petition, the review petition shall stand allowed reserving the liberty of the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition, notwithstanding the withdrawal of W.P.(C) No.14905/2019. The review petition is allowed as above.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AMV/06/07//2022 RP NO. 557 OF 2022 5 APPENDIX OF RP 557/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED , 4.6.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS NO.
C/1049/2022.
RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES : NIL TRUE COPY