Dr.P.M.Mini vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 17370 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
                                    &
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
  WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 3RD BHADRA, 1943
                           RP NO. 227 OF 2021
 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WA 1004/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA


REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT:

              DR.P.M.MINI
              AGED 47 YEARS
              W/O.SREEKUMARAN, RESIDING AT SREEPADAM, ASOKAPURAM
              CALICUT, LECTURER IN MATHEMATICS, M.A.M.O. COLLEGE,
              MANASSERY MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE 673 011
              BY ADVS.
              C.V.ALEXANDER
              BABU VARGHESE (SR.)

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

       1      STATE OF KERALA
              REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER
              SECONDARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
       2      THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
              KOZHIKODE 685 001
       3      THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
              KOZHIKODE 673 607
       4      THE PRINCIPAL
              M.A.M.O. COLLEGE, MANASSERY, MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE 673
              601

OTHER PRESENT:

              PRASANTH M.P , G.P

THIS       REVIEW   PETITION   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
25.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 R.P.No.227of 2021 in W.A.No.1004/2019      2




                                        ORDER

Gopinath, J.

This Review Petition has been filed seeking a review of the judgment

dated 24.1.2020 in W.A.No.1004/2019. Through that judgment, this Court

held that, in the light of the finding of another Division Bench of this Court

in W.A.No.23/2008, the review petitioner cannot claim salary and benefits

under the UGC Scheme except during the period during which she enjoyed

the benefit of exemption for acquisition of qualification and from the date

on which she acquired the requisite qualification.

2. It is noticed from the record that the judgment in

W.A.No.23/2008 was sought to be reviewed by the present review

petitioner, initially, by filing Review Petition No.1084/2009. That Review

Petition was disposed of on 25.5.2010 clarifying that the benefit of the

order of exemption will count from 17.3.2008, the date on which the UGC

had granted exemption from acquisition of qualification following the

interim direction dated 18.1.2018 issued in W.A.No.23/2008.

3. We find from the record that the very same review petitioner

had filed R.P.No.345/2015 again seeking review of the judgment in

W.A.No.23/2008, wherein the specific prayer was as under:-

"a) Review the judgment of this Hon'ble Court dated 22-09- 2009 in W.A.No.23/2008 to the extent to which it directs that petitioner cannot claim salary from the state for the period she did not have the benefit of exemption or was not qualified."

R.P.No.345/2019 was dismissed by order dated 24.1.2020, on the same

day that W.A.No.1004/2019 was decided.

4. Through the present Review Petition, the review petitioner

seeks a review of the judgment in W.A.No.1004/2019 and seeks to

establish that she was entitled to the benefit of salary and allowances under

UGC scale of pay with effect from the date of her first appointment, which

is 5.9.2002. The Division Bench, while deciding W.A.No.1004/2019, had

held that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of salary in the UGC

scale from 5.9.2002, in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench in

W.A.No.23/2008. As already noticed R.P.No.345/2019 was filed with the

specific prayer extracted above. The present Review Petition, therefore, is

essentially an attempt to redeem what was lost when Review Petition

No.345/2015 in W.A.No.23/2008 was dismissed. That apart we must also

notice that even in W.A.No.23/2008, the petitioner had filed two Review

Petitions, namely, R.P.No.1084/2009 and R.P.No.345/2015. A Division

Bench of this Court in Rajila v. Oriental Insurance Company;

2021(3)KHC 505 has made the following observation regarding the finding

of successive Review Petition:-

"1. Every dispute brought up before a judicial authority for determination, be it a Court or a tribunal, no doubt, should culminate in a final decision at some point. Law always favours finality of the litigation and frowns upon its perpetuity. Even when a statute permits a cause to be moved from the original authority to the appellate forum or provides for review as a measure to correct the mistakes in the decision, the adjudication should come to an end at some point. This is not based on any assumption that the highest authority will always be right, but on the fundamental reason that certainty and finality are the essential attributes required for the credibility of the justice dispensation system. This general proposition is embodied in Order XLVII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, "the Code"). It enunciates that no application to review an order made on an application for a review or a decree or order passed or made on a review shall be entertained."

Filing of the present Review Petition is, therefore, nothing but a sheer

abuse of process of this Court. We, therefore, dismiss the

R.P.No.227/2021. Despite finding that this petition is an abuse of process

of Court, taking a lenient view, we refrain from imposing any cost on the

review petitioner.

sd/-

MARY JOSEPH, JUDGE

sd/-

GOPINATH.P., JUDGE

acd

APPENDIX OF RP 227/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE UNIVERSITY VIDE ORDER NO.GAAII/F3/2397/03 DATED 17.10.2008 ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 6.4.2016 ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 27.5.2020 OBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.8.2011 IN LETTER NO.F-1-3/2011 (PS) EXEMPT