High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2019-07-19Review petitions dismissed.

C. M. Bindu W/o Rajeev Manikoth v. State of Kerala & Others (Review Petitions)

Case / Petition Number:RP No.1080/2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A. Hariprasad
Shircy V.
Judgment Date: 2019-07-19
Court Decision / Holding: Review petitions are dismissed by the Division Bench.
Final Disposition: Review petitions dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

C.M. Bind u W/o Rajeev Manikoth

Respondents

The State of Kerala represented by its Secretary to Government, General Education Department, Thiruvananthapuram
The Director of Public Instructions, Jagathy, Thiruvananthapuram
The Deputy Director of Education, Kannur District
The District Educational Officer, Thalassery, Kannur District
The Manager, Mattannur Higher Secondary School, Mattannur, Kannur District
The Head Master, Mattannur Higher Secondary School, Mattannur, Kannur District
Smt. P.V. Beena, Upper Primary School Assistant, Mattannur HSS, Mattannur
Smt. M.K. Sheena, High School Assistant (Maths) (Unapproved)
Smt. P. Bindu, High School Assistant (Maths) (Unapproved)
Smt. Smitha C. Thomas, High School Assistant (Maths) (Unapproved)
Smt. Nambiar Jaya Raveendran, UPSA, Mattannur HSS

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. V.A. Muhammed
• Sri. M. Sajjad

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Poovamulle Parambil Abdul Kareem
• Sri. Swamidasan
• Sri. C.P. Peethamparan
• Sri. Cibi Thomas
• Sri. K.V. Pavithran
• Sri. P.P. Abdul Kareem

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a batch of review petitions filed by C.M. Bindu, the sixth respondent/applicant in WA 1105/2015, challenging a 2016 Division Bench judgment that confirmed the dismissal of writ appeals concerning appointments in the Mattannur Higher Secondary School. The petitioner contends that certain factual and legal contentions were not properly considered at the time of disposal of the writ appeals, notably Ext. P12 (an order) and her claim to an English Higher Secondary School Assistant vacancy arising on 1 June 2010. She asserts she had acquired the requisite qualification in April 2007 and that this should have been taken into account for the vacancy. Counsel for the respondents counters that such issues were not raised before the Division Bench, and there is no legal ground for review. The petitioner also seeks to rely on the Supreme Court decision in Manager, VKNM Vocational Higher Secondary School v. State of Kerala (2016) 4 SCC 216, though it was not cited during the earlier proceedings. The court ultimately notes that a subsequent change in law cannot be used to unsettle settled issues and, after hearing both sides, dismisses the review petitions. This decision finalizes the challenged writ-appeal dispositions."

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Subsequent change of law cannot be taken as a ground for review.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The review petitioner contends that Ext. P12 (order) and her claim to the English HSA vacancy arising on 1 June 2010 were not considered by this Court while disposing of the writ appeals. She asserts that she obtained the requisite qualification in April 2007 and that this should be examined in light of her qualification and vacancy. She argues that these aspects were not discussed in the Division Bench's decision dated 8 November 2016 and thus merit review. She also relies on the Supreme Court decision in Manager, VKNM Vocational Higher Secondary School v. State of Kerala (2016) 4 SCC 216, though not urged as a ground for review; the core contention remains non‑consideration of material facts and the entitlement to appointment. The government’s actions are urged to be reviewed.

Contentions of Respondents

They submit that the review petition grounds were not raised before the Division Bench; there is no error on the face of the record; subsequent change in law cannot be a ground for review; even if the Apex Court decision exists, it was not cited earlier; the remedy is to challenge the judgment through the proper forum; facts were not raised earlier; hence the petitions should be dismissed.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Manager, VKNM Vocational Higher Secondary School v. State of Kerala	2016(4) SCC 216	Mentioned Only	Cited by the petitioner; the court acknowledges the decision but did not rely on it to dispose of the review petitions.
W.A.No.724/2014	02/06/2014	Mentioned Only	Annexed as a true copy in the appendix; referenced but not discussed or applied in the judgment.
	2009(3) KLT 488	Mentioned Only	Referenced in annexures; not analyzed or applied in the decision.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against C. M. Bindu W/o Rajeev Manikoth v. State of Kerala & Others (Review Petitions) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.** **FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1941** **RP.No.1080 of 2016 IN WA. 1168/2015** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WA 1168/2015 IN WPC. 31748/2013 of HIGH COURT DATED 08-11-2016** ## **REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT:** **C.M.BINDU W/O.RAJEEV MANIKOTH, AGED 35 YEARS, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, MATTANNUR HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.M.SAJJAD** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.** - **3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KANNUR DISTRICT-670001.** **4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT-670101. 5 THE MANAGER MATTANNUR HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670702. 6 THE HEAD MASTER MATTANNUR HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670702.** R.P.1080/2016 & CON. CASES 2 - **7 SMT.P.V.BEENA UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, MATTANNUR HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT670702.** - **8 SMT.M.K.SHEENA HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (MATHS) (SINCE 1/6/2010 UNAPPROVED), MATTANNUR HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670702.** - **9 SMT.P.BINDU HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (MATHS) (SINCE 01/06/2016 UNAPPROVED), MATTANNUR HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670702.** - **10 SMT.SMITHA C.THOMAS HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (MATHS) (SINCE 01/06/2016 UNAPPROVED), MATTANNUR HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670702.** - **11 SMT.NAMBIAR JAYA RAVEENDRAN AGED 43 YEARS, W/O.SASIKUMAR, KARTHIKA KALLUR, P.O.MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT (UPSA, MATTANNUR HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL).** - **BY ADV. SRI.POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDULKAREEM BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. SWAMIDASAN BY ADV. S.P. ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI BY ADV. C.P. PEETHAMPARAN** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.07.2019, ALONG WITH RP.71/2017, RP.1088/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** R.P.1080/2016 & CON. CASES 3 **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.** **FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1941** **RP.No.71 of 2017 IN WA. 1105/2015** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WA 1105/2015 IN WPC NO. 10557/2013 of HIGHCOURT DATED 08-11-2016** **REVIEW PETITIONER/6TH RESPONDENT:** **C.M.BINDU W/O RAJIV MANIKOTH, AGED 38 YEARS, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, MATTANNUR HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DIST.(RESIDING AT LAKSHMI NIVAS, P.O. CHAVASSERY (VIA) MATTANNUR, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DIST)** **BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED** ## **RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 & 7:** **1 SMT.PRAMODINI N.K W/O ANANDAN, AGED 39 YEARS, UPSA, MATTANNUR HSS, MATTANNUR, RESIDING AT CHARANTHOTH HOUSE, PRNSS COLLEGE P.O (VIA) MATTANNUR, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DIST- 670 702.** **2 SMT.PRASEEJA N.V. W/O SANTHOSH KUMAR , AGED 39 YEARS, UPSA MATTANNUR HSS, MATTANNUR, RESIDING AT KRISHNA NIVAS KUYLOOR, PADIYOOR P.O. THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DIST.** **3 THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001** R.P.1080/2016 & CON. CASES 4 - **4 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 014** - **5 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER THALASSERY EDUCAITONAL DISTRICT KANNUR DISTRICT- 670 101** - **6 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT- 670 101** - **7 THE MANAGER MATTANNUR HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, P.O.MATTANNUR, THALASSERY TALOUK, KANNUR DIST- 670 702** **8 SMT.A SUJA AGED 39 YEARS, W/O BIJU NARAYAN UPPER PRIOMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, MATTANNUR HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL MATTANNUR (RESIDING AT LEELAAYALAM P.O. PUNNAD, (VIA) IRITTY, THALSSERY TALUK, KANNUR DIST- 670- 702** **BY ADVS. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS R7 SRI.POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDULKAREEM BY ADV. K.V. PAVITHRAN GOVT. PLEADER SRI. SWAMIDASAN** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.07.2019, ALONG WITH RP.1080/2016, RP.1088/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** R.P.1080/2016 & CON. CASES 5 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.** **FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1941** **RP.No.1088 of 2016 IN WA. 1104/2015** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WA 1104/2015 IN WPC. 16402/2014 of HIGH COURT DATED 08-11-2016** ## **REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT:** **C.M.BINDU W/O RAJEEV, MANIKOTH, AGED 35 YEARS, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.V.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.** - **2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014.** - **3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KANNUR DISTRICT 670 001.** - **4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT 670 101.** R.P.1080/2016 & CON. CASES 6 - **5 THE MANAGER MATTANNUR HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT 670 702.** - **6 THE HEADMASTER MATTANNUR HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT 670 702.** - **7 SMT. JAYASREE HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (ENGLISH) (NOT APPROVED), MATTANNUR HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT 670 702.** **ADV. K.V. PAVITHRAN ADV. P.P. ABDUL KAREEM GOVT. PLEADEWR SRI. SWAMIDASAN** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.07.2019, ALONG WITH RP.71/2017, RP.1080/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** R.P.1080/2016 & CON. CASES 7 ## **ORDER** **[ RP 1080/2016, RP.71/2017, RP.1088/2016 ]** ## A. Hariprasad, J. Review petitioner is the appellant in W.A. Nos. 1104 and 1168 of 2015 and she is the 6[th] respondent in W.A. No. 1105 of 2015. 2. All the appeals were considered by a Division Bench of this Court and as per the judgment dated 8[th] November 2016, the appeals were dismissed confirming the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Grievance of the petitioner is that her contentions – both factual and legal – were not properly considered at the time of disposal of the appeals. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents. Learned Government Pleader is also heard. R.P.1080/2016 & CON. CASES 8 4. Learned counsel for the review petitioner contended that her challenge against Ext.P12 in W.P.(C) No. 31748 of 2013 was not considered by this court at the time of disposal of the appeals. It is also contended that her claim for HSA (English) to a vacancy which arose on 1.6.2010 was also not considered despite the fact that she had acquired the requisite qualification in the month of April, 2007. 5. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents pointed out that these factual issues were not raised before the Division Bench at the time of hearing the writ appeals and there was no occasion for the court to consider this aspect for non-mentioning these points. Moreover, in the review petitions no specific ground is raised regarding non-consideration of these aspects. Only at the time of hearing, these points are raised. Therefore, these contentions cannot now be urged in a review petition. R.P.1080/2016 & CON. CASES 9 6. Learned counsel for the review petitioner places reliance on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Manager, VKNM Vocational Higher Secondary School v. State of Kerala ((2016) 4 SCC 216) to raise a contention that the review petitioner is entitled to make a claim for appointment. This submission is also strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents contending that this decision was not brought to the notice of this Court at the time of hearing and disposal of the appeals. Although it was pointed out that the decision was rendered on 27.1.2016 and the writ appeals were disposed only on 8.11.2016, it is evident that, the above decision was not cited before this Court to establish the revision petitioner's claim. It is a settled principle that subsequent change of law cannot be taken as a ground for review, and it cannot be used for unsettling the issues which are already settled. If at all there is any remedy available to the review petitioner, it is only to challenge the judgment before an appropriate forum. R.P.1080/2016 & CON. CASES 10 Having heard the rival submissions, we are of the view that none of the grounds raised for reviewing the judgment passed by this Court on 8.11.2016 constitute a legal ground for review. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the review petitions are dismissed. **Sd/-** **A.HARIPRASAD JUDGE** **Sd/SHIRCY V. JUDGE** sb R.P.1080/2016 & CON. CASES 11 ## **APPENDIX OF RP 1080/2016** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE I- TRUE COPY OF THE APEX COURT JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2016(4) SCC 216 DATED 27/01/2016.** **ANNEXURE IITRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.724/2014 DATED 02/06/2014. ANNEXURE IIITRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2009(3) KLT 488 03/07/2009.** //true copy// Sd/- P.S. To Judge R.P.1080/2016 & CON. CASES 12 ## **APPENDIX OF RP 1088/2016** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE I- TRUE COPY OF THE APEX COURT JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2016(4) SCC 216 DATED 27/01/2016. ANNEXURE IITRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.724/2014 DATED 02/06/2014. ANNEXURE IIITRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2009(3) KLT 488 03/07/2009.** //true copy// Sd/- **P.S. To Judge** R.P.1080/2016 & CON. CASES 13 ## **APPENDIX OF RP 1080/2016** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE I- TRUE COPY OF THE APEX COURT JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2016(4) SCC 216 DATED 27/01/2016. ANNEXURE IITRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.724/2014 DATED 02/06/2014. ANNEXURE IIITRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2009(3) KLT 488 03/07/2009.** //true copy// Sd/- **P.S. To Judge**