The Principal Secretary To Higher ... vs Sumini K.C
2021 Latest Caselaw 23754 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
     TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943
                          RP NO. 746 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 2071/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA


REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 2,3 & ADDL. R4 IN WPC:

1           THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
            STATE OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 036

2.          THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, PRESS ROAD,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001

3           THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
            GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001
            BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER


RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDNET IN WPC:

1           SUMINI K.C.
            S/O.MANOJ, NOCHIYIL HOUSE, VATTANTHARA POST,
            THRISSUR DISTRICT.

2           LBS CENTRE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
            EXTRA POLICE STATION ROAD
            NANDAVANAM, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695033,
            REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR
     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.11.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP NO. 746 OF 2021            2




                              ORDER

Dated this the 30th day of November, 2021

The Principal Secretary to the Higher Education and

others have come with a Review Petition against the judgment

of this Court in W.P.(c) No.2071 of 2021, dated 02.03.2021.

2. In the writ petition, the petitioner was a candidate

belonging to OBC, who appeared in a State Eligibility Test

(SET Examinations) aspiring to become a Higher Secondary

School Teacher. By an omission, the petitioner uploaded her

application indicating that she belongs to OBC Creamy layer.

The petitioner stated that it was a mistake committed by the

petitioner and she does actually belongs to OBC Non Creamy

layer.

3. This Court considered the writ petition and the

pleadings therein. This Court found that SET is only a

Qualifying Test for appointment to the post of Teacher in

Higher Secondary Schools. As the petitioner described herself

as OBC Creamy layer due inadvertent mistake, even if she is

permitted to change her status as Non Creamy layer in

accordance with Ext.P1 issued by the competent authority,

such change will not adversely affect the chances of any other

candidates. In such circumstances, this Court disposed of the

writ petition directing the 4th respondent in the writ petition to

consider Ext.P5 representation filed by the petitioner and pass

appropriate orders thereon, taking into consideration the fact

that the mentioning as 'OBC Creamy layer' made by the 1 st

respondent in the application was by inadvertent error as is

evident from Ext.P1'. Against this judgment Review Petition is

filed.

4. The Review Petition is filed contending that the

positive observations of this Court contained in the judgment

was unwarranted. Annexure R1(a) Prospectus very clearly

indicated that OBC and SC/ST candidates availing concession

should submit Non Creamy layer/Caste/Community Certificates

from the revenue authorities of the Government of Kerala. In

the absence of the above valid certificate, mark concession will

not be given. It was also stipulated in the Prospectus that

subsequent claims for inclusion in the list of eligible candidates

for any relaxation shall not be entertained. In view of the

specific provisions in the Prospectus, this Court should not

have allowed the writ petition.

5. The learned Standing Counsel representing the 2 nd

respondent also urged that a candidate should not be

permitted to change the category after the examination. The

learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent supported the

Review Petition.

6. I have heard the learned Government Pleader

representing the review petitioner and the learned Standing

Counsel for the 2nd respondent.

7. Going though the judgment, it is evident that this

Court has considered the mistake committed by the 1 st

respondent in uploading the application. The reliable

Certificates produced by the Review Petitioner evidenced that

the Review Petitioner infact belongs to OBC Non Creamy layer

category. This Court further found that inclusion of the name of

the 1st respondent in the Non Creamy layer category will not

adversely affect any third party. It was under such

circumstances, the writ petition was disposed of directing the

4th respondent to consider Ext.P5 representation filed by the 1 st

respondent and pass appropriate orders thereon.

In the above view of the matter, this Court find no error

apparent on the face of the records warranting a review of the

judgment. Review petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE hmh