Kerala High Court
Union Of India vs This Review Petition Having Come Up For ... on 26 February, 2014
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, A.Muhamed Mustaque
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/28TH ASWINA, 1936
RP.No. 626 of 2014 () IN OP (CAT).4252/2011
---------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP (CAT) 4252/2011 of HIGH COURT
OF KERALA DATED 26-02-2014
REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/R1 TO R4 IN OP(CAT)/R1 TO R4 IN O.A.:-:
---------------------------------------------
1. UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF POST, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2. CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL,
KERALA CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.
3. POST MASTER GENERAL,
NORTHERN REGION, CALICUT - 673 011.
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE,
MANJERI DIVISION, MANJERI - 676 121.
BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH,
ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER, R5 & R6 IN OP(CAT)/APPLICANT, R5 &
R6 IN O.A.:-:
--------------------------------------------
1. RAJESH V., AGED 37 YEARS
S/O.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR.K., B.P.M. ARIMPRA POST
KONDOTTY VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
RESIDING AT KARIYEDATH, PALLIKKAL POST,
CHELAMBRA VIA., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2. ANIL KUMAR R.,
POSTMAN, C/O. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES
MANJERI POSTAL DIVISION, MANJERI - 676 121.
3. RAJESH P.,
POSTMAN, C/O. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES
MANJERI POSTAL DIVISION, MANJERI - 676 121.
BY SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JJ.
....................................................................
R.P.No.626 of 2014 in OP(CAT) No.4252 of 2011
and
C.M.Appl.No.230 of 2014 in R.P.No.626 of 2014
....................................................................
Dated this the 20th day of October, 2014.
O R D E R
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
1.This application for review by the Union of India and the officers in Postal Department comes up with an application seeking condonation of delay of 137 days in its institution.
2.Heard the learned Assistant Solicitor General and the learned counsel for the first respondent, who was the petitioner in the original petition.
3.Question arose as to whether a particular selection procedure of evaluation of answer scripts for selection to the post of Postman was done, in accordance with law. An interlocutory order was issued during the pendency of OP(CAT) No.4252 of 2011. Thereafter, answer scripts were revalued. The results disclosed that the petitioner in the original petition and some others got good scores in all the papers. That result, to a large extent, contradicted the result, which was the subject to the challenge RP 626/14 -2- before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Division Bench of this Court did not agree with the Tribunal rejecting the applicant's claim on technical grounds.
4.It was also then noted by this Court that it is only the petitioner in the original petition, who had carried the matter for adjudication. Under such circumstances, as an exceptional case, directions were issued to appoint the petitioner in the original petition in the next occurring vacancy. This Court, in that process, did not lay down any particular principle of law or even any precedential decision on facts, but had only attempted to do justice to the petitioner in the original petition, who alone had complained about the erroneous evaluation of answer scripts, in the first round.
5.Under the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that merely because the revaluation showed that there were other candidates also, who had got better marks, the judgment sought to be reviewed need not be interfered with. This is so, more particularly because, there is no ground for the establishment to be RP 626/14 -3- aggrieved.
6.We are also sure that the judgment sought to be reviewed does not operate in favour of any other person and it stands on the very peculiar facts and circumstances on the basis of which the petitioner in the original petition was granted relief. Obviously, the judgment sought to be reviewed is not a precedent on any principle of law.
7.We see no error apparent on the face of the record or any other ground for review of the judgment sought to be reviewed. In the result, for the aforesaid reasons, the application seeking condonation of delay and the review petition are dismissed.
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE) jg