Jayasree K.K. vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 5727 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

    WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 28TH MAGHA,1942

                RP.No.19 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 21326/2020

          AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 21326/2020(M) OF

                        HIGH COURT OF KERALA


REVIEW PETITIONER:

               JAYASREE K.K., W/O. LATE SURENDRAN, OFFICE ATTENDANT,
               SREEKRISHNA COLLEGE, ARIYANNUR P.O, GURUVAYUR,
               TRICHUR DISTRICT - 680102.

               SRI.M.R.ANISON

RESPONDENTS:

      1        STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
               HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

      2        THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
               DIRECTORATE OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, 6TH FLOOR, VIKAS
               BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

      3        GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE
               REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM,
               GURUVAYOOR, TRICHUR DISTRICT - 680101.

      4        THE MANAGER, SREEKRISHNA COLLEGE, ARIYANNUR P.O,
               GURUVAYUR, TRICHUR DISTRICT - 680102.

      5        THE PRINCIPAL
               SREEKRISHNA COLLEGE, ARIYANNUR P.O, GURUVAYUR,
               TRICHUR DISTRICT - 680102.

               SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL - SR. GP.

     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION            ON
17.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP.No.19 OF 2021

                                    2


                                ORDER

Dated this the 17th day of February 2021

When this matter was called today, the learned counsel

on both sides were ad idem that a Division Bench of this Court

has now delivered judgment in W.A.No.1543/2020, setting

aside the earlier judgment of a learned Single Judge, which

has been noticed as Ext.P8 in the judgment sought to be

reviewed.

2. I am, therefore, of the firm view that nothing remains

in this review petition, particularly because I had directed the

Devaswom Board to consider the petitioner's claim, as voiced

by her in Ext.P9, depending upon the decision to be taken by

the learned Division Bench.

I, therefore, close this review petition; however,

clarifying that when the exercise as ordered in the judgment is

completed by the Devaswom Board, they will, no doubt, advert

to the directions of the learned Division Bench, but will grant

relief to the petitioner in terms of the request, if she is found

eligible, strictly in terms of the request made in Ext.P9.

                                        Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

    Stu                                          JUDGE