Haridasan.M.T. v. The Joint Controller Of Examinatiions
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2015/16TH ASHADHA, 1937 RP.No. 884 of 2012 () IN WP(C).13317/2012 ------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 13317/2012 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 21-06-2012 REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:
-------------------------------------------------------------- HARIDASAN.M.T. AGED 50 YEARS S/O.T.ACHUTHAN, Q NO.TYPE II, B2 PY.I.P.COLONY (PAZHASSI IRRIGATION PROJECT) CIVIL STATION P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.V.VENUGOPAL RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
----------------------------------------------------
1. THE JOINT CONTROLLER OF TECHNICAL EXAMINATIIONS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, THOTTADA KANNUR-670001.
R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI K.K. SAIDALAVI THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.884/2012 in WPC No.13317/2012 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of July, 2015
O R D E R
The writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 21.6.2012. The direction sought therein was to publish the results of supplementary examinations written by the petitioner in November, 2009 in respect of the subjects 'Applied Science', 'Hydrolics and Irrigation Engineering' and 'Theory of Structure' and to issue the mark lists. On the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the results have already been published and the mark lists have been forwarded to the Principal of Government Polytechnic College, Kannur, after recording the same, the writ petition was disposed of. The petitioner was further directed to approach the Principal for getting the mark lists.
2. In the review petition it is pointed out that pursuant to the disposal of the writ petition, the review petitioner approached the Principal for the mark list. Annexure A2 is relied upon to show that the
rp 884/2012 in wpc 13317/2012 Principal had communicated to the competent authority that the mark list has not been received. In spite of several postings no positive actions have been forthcoming also. Learned counsel submitted that the mark lists have not been received so far. But the learned Government Pleader points out that they have been forwarded. It is therefore clear that the petitioner has been put to real hardship in the matter. He may have to seek appropriate reliefs in the writ petition itself. Hence, the review petition is allowed and the writ petition is reposted. Post the writ petition before the appropriate Bench as per roster.
(T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) kav/