Kerala High Court
Hareeshmon K N vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 17 June, 2013
Author: Babu Mathew P. Joseph
Bench: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Babu Mathew P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH
SATURDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/29TH BHADRA, 1936
RP.No. 570 of 2014 () IN OP(KAT).2066/2013
--------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(KAT) 2066/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA
DATED 17.6.2013
-----------------
REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER :-
----------------------------------------
HAREESHMON K N
S/O.NARAYANAN, CPO K 921, HQ.COY
A.R CAMP, KOTTAYAM RESIDING AT KEENTHANANICKAL HOUSE
VILAKKUMADAM, POOVARANY P.O, PIN 686 577.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR.)
SRI.PRAKASH P.GEORGE
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT :-
----------------------------
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
OFFICE OF THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 004.
BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
jvt
RP.No.570 OF 2014
APPENDIX
Petitioner's Exhibits :-
Annexure A1 :- True copy of the common dated 8.8.2013
judgment in O.A.Nos.317, 441, 327, 503, 381, 383, 135, 192,
198, 215, 263, 328, 339, 340, 365, 385, 389, 392, 602 and
1381 of 2013 of The Kerala Administrative Tribunal.
Respondent's Exhibits :- NIL.
//True Copy//
P.A.to Judge
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN
& BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
R.P. No.570 of 2014 &
C.M.Appl. No.216 of 2014
in
OP(CAT) No.2066 of 2013
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of September 2014
O R D E R
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
The application seeking review of judgment is filed with an application seeking condonation of delay of 367 days.
2. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner.
3. The application seeking condonation of delay is only on the basis of a plea that the petitioner came to know about Annexure-A1 common order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal recently. We are not satisfied that sufficient reason is shown to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
4. The aforesaid position notwithstanding, no ground to review the judgment is established. The decision rendered by the Tribunal in the petitioner's case was affirmed by this Court in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India R.P. No.570 of 2014 in OP(CAT) No.2066 of 2013 -: 2 :- holding that there was no ground to interfere with the reasons stated therein that the Public Service Commission had properly looked into the complaints and the appeal made by the petitioner to the Public Service Commission was examined in the light of the video recordings of the physical efficiency test and therefore, there was no ground for the Public Service Commission to interfere. It was held by this Court that no ground of illegality, irregularity or any other vitiating elements have been sustained.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not see that there is any error apparent on the face of the judgment warranting review of judgment. The review petition, therefore, fails.
In the result, the application for condonation of delay and the review petition are dismissed in limine.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
Sd/-
BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
Jvt