State Of Kerala Represented By Its ... vs Hamja Beegum.S
2023 Latest Caselaw 5122 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
   THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1945
                       RP NO. 407 OF 2023
  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTWP(C) 31453/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF
                             KERALA

REVIEW PETITIONER/S:

    1      STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
           DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
           THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

    2      DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
           OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
           JAGATHY P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014

    3      DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
           THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
           PATHANAMTHITTA, PATHANAMTHITTA.P.O, PIN - 683645

    4      ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
           ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KONNI,
           ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICE, CIVIL STATION ,KONNI P.O.,
           PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689691

           BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER

RESPONDENT/S:

    1      HAMJA BEEGUM.S
           OFFICE ATTENDANT,G.J.M U.P SCHOOL, KALLELI,
           PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689691

    2      MANAGER
           G.J.M U.P SCHOOL, KALLELI,
           PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689691

           BY ADV V.B PREMACHANDRAN


     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP NO. 407 OF 2023

                                         2



                                       ORDER

This Review Petition is filed seeking to review the judgment dated

24.11.2022 in W.P.(C.) No. 31453/2022.

2. In the Review Petition, it is stated that at the time of disposal of the

writ petition, the learned Government Pleader was not able to point out that

G.O.(P.) No. 3/2019/G.Edn. dated 28.02.2019, produced as Ext. P5 in the writ

petition is an SRO that was issued for amending the Kerala Education Rules. It

is contended that the petitioner had not mounted any challenge against the

same. It is also submitted that Ext. P6 is a Circular issued pursuant to Ext.P5.

However, inadvertently, this Court, while allowing the writ petition, had quashed

Exts. P5 and P6, along with Ext. P2.

3. Having considered the submissions, I am of the opinion that due to

a typographical error in the relief portion, Exts.P5 and P6 were also quashed in

addition to Ext.P2. This is clearly an error apparent on the face of the record.

4. Resultantly, this Review Petition will stand allowed. The judgment

dated 24.11.2022 in W.P.(C) No. 31453/2022 will stand reviewed. The operative

portion shall be read as under:

"Resultantly, Ext.P2 will stand quashed. There will be a direction to the 4th respondent to reconsider the matter in the light of the law RP NO. 407 OF 2023

laid down in Exts.P7 and P8 and grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner as a Full-Time Office Attendant on a regular pay basis with effect from 1.8.2019, with all consequential benefits. Orders shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment."

As the judgment has been reviewed, the directions shall be complied with,

within eight weeks from today.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

avs