Kerala High Court
Manager vs Milly Poulose on 28 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1943
RP NO. 382 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 17569/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM
REVIEW PETITIONER/4TH RESPONDENT IN W.P.C:
MANAGER
ST.IGNATIUS HIGHER SECONDAREY SCHOOL, KANJIRAMATTOM,
ERNAKULAM - 682 315.
BY ADV N.RAGHURAJ
RESPONDENTS:
1 MILLY POULOSE
AGED 39 YEARS
D/O. M. I. POULOSE, NOW WORKING AS HSST PHYSICS, ST.
IGNATIUS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KANJIRAMATTOM,
ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT RAMYA HOUSE, MUKKOTTIL TEMPLE
ROAD, POONITHURA, KOCHI - 28.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
3 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 005.
4 REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR
HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, SRV SCHOOL BUILDING 3, SRV
ROAD, ERNAKULAM SOUTH, ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682
011.
5 SHEENA JOY
D/O. P. C. JOY, PALATHADATHIL HOUSE, VADAVUCODE P. O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 310.
SRI.P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.06.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RP NO. 382 OF 2021
2
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking review of the
judgment of this Court dated 19.03.2021 in W.P.(C)
No.17569/2020, primarily with a contention that the
directions therein cannot be implemented by the petitioner
- Manager of the School on account of Annexure-1 interim
order of this Court in OP(C) No.446/2021
2. Sri.N.Raghuraj, learned counsel appearing for the
review petitioner, submitted that Annexure-1 order had not
been brought to the notice of this Court when the writ
petition was disposed of and that there is an express
interdiction ordered in it against making any appointment
by the petitioner. He submitted that if the directions in the
judgment sought to be reviewed are implemented, his
client apprehends that it will be construed to be in
contravention of Annexure-1 order of this Court.
3. In addition to the afore, Sri.N.Raghuraj then
submitted that the writ petitioner/1st respondent herein is
not legally entitled to be appointed to the vacancy that
arose on 01.05.2021, since she cannot claim any right
under Rule 51A of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education
RP NO. 382 OF 2021
Rules. He, therefore, prayed that this review petition be
allowed.
4. Sri.Benoy Thomas, learned counsel for the writ
petitioner/1st respondent, in response, submitted that this
review petition is not maintainable since it is based on a
specific concession made by the petitioner - Manager
before this Court, to appoint the writ petitioner to the
vacancy which was to arise on 01.05.2021. He added that
this review petition has been filed by the petitioner
engaging a different counsel and argued that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has, on various occasions, declared that
this cannot be done.
5. In response to the second contention raised by
Sri.N.Raghuraj, Sri.Benoy Thomas asserted that the
contest regarding his client's entitlement to be appointed
to the vacancy which arose on 01.05.2021 has not even
been impelled in this petition and that what has been
argued at the Bar is something which was not pursued by
the Manager when the writ petition was disposed of or
even at the time when the review petition was filed. He,
therefore, prayed that this review petition be dismissed.
6. I have examined the afore submissions and have
RP NO. 382 OF 2021
also gone through the materials available on record.
7. From the judgment sought to be reviewed, it is
indubitable that the learned counsel for the petitioner -
Manager had given an undertaking on behalf of his client
that, since a vacancy was to arise in the post of Higher
Secondary School Teacher (HSST) on 01.05.2021, he is
willing to appoint the writ petitioner. There was absolutely
no submission made with respect to the entitlement of the
writ petitioner to be appointed so, when the writ petition
was heard; and obviously, therefore, the review petitioner
can impel this plea now. Moreover, I notice that even a
close reading of the averments in this review petition does
not reveal that the petitioner even whispers that the writ
petitioner is not entitled to be appointed to the vacancy
that arose on 01.05.2021. I, therefore, see no cause to
consider this contention on its merits.
8. As regards Sri.Raghuraj's submission that if the
directions in the judgment sought to be reviewed are
implemented, it will be an affront to Annexure-1 order of
this Court, I find no favour with it. This is because, in OPC
from which Annexure-1 order arises, this Court was
considering the entitlement of the rival parties to claim
RP NO. 382 OF 2021
managership of the School. It is in such context that
Annexure 1 order has been issued directing that no
appointments will be made in future, because there is
subsisting conflict between rival parties on the question of
managership of School. That said, however, in this case,
the writ petitioner was continuing in the school for over 18
years and I have found that she was entitled to continue
without break, which was offered to be accomplished by
the Manager by accommodating her to the vacancy that
was to arise on 01.05.2021. Thus, by no stretch of
imagination, can the writ petitioner be considered as a
fresh appointee, since she has only been directed to be
accommodated to the vacancy that arose pending this lis.
In the afore circumstances, I am firm in my mind that
Annexure 1 would not be in any manner violated if the writ
petitioner is appointed to the vacancy in the manner as
ordered in the judgment sought to be reviewed.
Resultantly, this review petition is closed.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
stu
RP NO. 382 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF RP 382/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURE
Annexure 1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED
02.03.2021 IN O.P.(C) NO.446 OF 2021 AND
C.R.P. NO.81 OF 2021.
