Usha B. & Anitha P. v. Director, Directorate of Scheduled Caste Development Department & Others (RP.No. 1093/2018 in OP(KAT). 202/2017)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** ## **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.** **WEDNESDAY,THE 06TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 17TH MAGHA, 1940** **RP.No. 1093 of 2018 IN OP(KAT). 202/2017** ## **REVIEW PETITIONER/S:** **1 USHA B, AGED 45 YEARS D/O.THANKAPPAN,SCHEDULED CASTE PROMOTER,SASTHAMCOTTA BLOCK SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,SASTHAMCOTTA.P.O, KOLLAM-690 521,RESIDING AT THEKKEMURI,SOORANAD NORTH.P.O, KUNNATHOOR TALUK,KOLLAM-690 561.** **2 ANITHA.P, AGED 44 YEARS, W/O.SURESH NANU,SCHEDULED CASTE PROMOTER, CHITTUMALA BLOCK OFFICE, KOLLAM-691 507, RESIDING AT PARPIDAM, PERAYAM, MULAVANA.P.O, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM-691 009.** **BY ADVS. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN SMT.T.J.SEEMA** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, AYYANKALI BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURRAM-695 003. 2 THE DISTRICT OFFICER, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, KOLLAM-691 013. 3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, NORTH BLOCK, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** R.P.1093/2018 2 **4 LIJU GOPI, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.GOPI,SCHEDULED CASTE PROMOTER, SASTHAMCOTTA BLOCK OFFICE, SASTHAMCOTTA.P.O, KOLLAM-690 521, RESIDING AT THADATHIL VEEDU, KOVOOR, ARINALLOOR.P.O, KUNANTHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM-690 538.** **5 SUBASH.K, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.KUTTY, SCHEDULED CASTE PROMOTER, SASTHAMCOTTA BLOCK SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, SASTHAMCOTTA.P.O, KOLLAM-690 521, RESIDING AT MOOTHEDATH VILA, KOICKAL BHAGAM, PERUVELIKKARA.P.O, WEST KALLADA, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM-691 500.** **6 RAGINI.A, AGED 41 YEARS, D/O.AYYAPPAN, SCHEDULED CASTE PROMOTER, SASTHAMCOTTA BLOCK OFFICE, SASTHAMCOTTA.P.O,KIZHAKKATHIL, KIDANGAYAM NORTH, PATHARAM.P.O, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM-690 522.** **7 LEGHA.D, AGED 39 YEARS, W/O.P.K.RENU.SCHEDULED CASTE PROMOTER, SASATHAMCOTTA BLOCK OFFICE, SASTHAMCOTTA.P.O, KOLLAM-690 521, RESIDING AT SREELAKAM, AMBALATHUMBHAGAM.P.O, PORUVAZHY, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM-690 520.** **8 ANITHA.C, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O.THAMBI, SCHEDULED CASTE PROMOTER, SASATHAMCOTTA BLOCK OFFICE, SASTHAMCOTTA.P.O, KOLLAM-690 521, RESIDING AT PLAMMOTTIL KIZHAKKATHIL, MANAMPUZHA.P.O, KUNNATHOOR, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM-691 553.** **9 SATHYAN, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.YESODHARAN, SCHEDULED CASTE PROMOTER, CHAVARA BLOCK OFFICE, CHAVARA, KOLLAM-691 583, RESIDING AT SRUTHILAYAM,PALACKAL,THEVALAKKARA.P.O, MARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK,KOLLAM-690 524.** R.P.1093/2018 3 **10 MANOJ.R, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN,SCHEDULED CASTE PROMOTER CHITTUMALA BLOCK OFFICE, KOLLAM-691 507, RESIDING AT AMBIKA BHAVANAM,THETTIKKUNNU, KUNDARA.P.O, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM-691 501.** **11 SOUMYA.V, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.RAVEENDRAN, SCHEDULED CASTE PROMOTER, CHITTUMALA BLOCK OFFICE, KOLLAM-691 507, RESIDING AT VAYALIL PUTHEN VEEDU, NENMENI, MANTROTHURUTH.P.O, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM-691 502.** ## **SR.GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** R.P.1093/2018 4 ## **O R D E R** ## **Ramachandra Menon, J.** Review petitioners, who were the petitioners 3 and 10 in O.P.(KAT).No.202 of 2017 are before this Court seeking for review of the judgment to the extent it relates to fixing of criteria for preference and to make the qualifications conjointly, that is as 8 years of service and age group of 40 to 50 belonging to social workers group as the preferred group for appointment. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length. We have gone through the judgment as well. Three grounds has been raised by the review petitioners, which are as given below: “A) There is an apparent error on the face of judgment which warrants a review of the judgment. B) It is submitted that the real tenor and terms of the judgment is that those persons who have continuous service of 8 years and those who are falling within the age group of 40 to 50 years in the R.P.1093/2018 5 category of social workers have to be given preference in the matter of appointment as SC promoters. When the judgment is read as a whole, one could very easily find that the judgment is very clear regarding the twin qualifications. But unfortunately, the respondents misinterpreted the judgment as fixing the criteria of age group alone for preference and the length of service have nothing to do with the direction. C) It is submitted that by misinterpreting the judgment of this Hon'ble Court looking only at the penultimate sentence, the respondents have appointed persons of their choice. The real purport and import of the judgment has been defeated.” 3. After hearing and after considering the facts and figures, we are of the view that there is no error apparent on the face of the record to call for interference of this court. There is no obscurity in the judgment and the directions given. It has been made clear by the Apex Court on an occasion that the power of review cannot be misconstrued as a substitute for appeal. We place reliance in the ruling reported in **Smt.Meera Bhanja v. Smt.Nirmala Kumari Choudhury** [ **AIR** **1995 SC 455].** R.P.1093/2018 6 4. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Government Pleader that the issue is now pending consideration before the Honourable Supreme Court, as some of the parties to the common verdict have already moved the Apex Court. 5. The learned counsel for the review petitioner points out that, contrary to the specific directions given and in spite of the fact that there is no obscurity therein, the respondents have given benefits to strangers ignoring the better rights of the petitioners herein. It is in the said circumstance, that an I.A has been filed seeking to implead them in the party array. The learned counsel also submits that, while giving appointment to the aforesaid persons, the only criterion considered was the age group of 40 to 50 years, whereas the other requirement of experience of 8 years was omitted to be reckoned. 6. This Court is of the view that, if this be the grievance of the petitioner, it is for them to approach the Tribunal by way of appropriate proceedings, by including the persons appointed in the party array and R.P.1093/2018 7 challenge the course of action pursued. Without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings, in respect of the subsequent developments, in accordance with law, the review petition stands dismissed. ## **Sd/-** ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** **JUDGE** DG **Sd/SHIRCY V. JUDGE** R.P.1093/2018 8 ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.10.2017** **ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.10.2017.** **ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER DATED 15.12.2017** **ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 08.08.2018.** **ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 08.08.2018.** **ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CONT.CASE(CIVIL)NO.1855/2018 DATED 23.10.2018.**