Krishnan K.K v. State Of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/15TH MAGHA, 1936 RP.No. 93 of 2015 (U) ------------------------------ WP(C) 28763/2011 of THIS HONOURABLE COURT ---------------- REVIEW PETITIONER/ PETITIONER IN WPC 28763 OF 2011 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KRISHNAN K.K., ASSISTANT TEACHER, THIRUVATTOOR A.L.P SCHOOL, P.O. THIRUVATTOOR, KANNUR PIN 670 001 BY ADVS.SMT.MOLLY JACOB SMT.M.KABANI DINESH SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC 28763 OF 2011 : -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001

2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR 670 001

3. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TAIPARAMBA NORTH, KANNUR 670 141

4. THE MANAGER THIRUVATTOR A.L.P SCHOOL, P.O THIRUVATTOR, KANNUR 670 001 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

bp

RP.No. 93 of 2015 (U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :

ANNEXURE 1:

COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY VICE-CHANCELLOR OF KANNUR UNIVERSITY.

ANNEXURE 2:

COPY OF THE LIST OF CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS STUDYING IN THIRUVATTOOR ALP SCHOOL ISSUED BY THE HEAD MISTRESS IN THE YEAR 2014-2015 ANNEXURE P3:

COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 16/6/2012 DEPUTING THE PETITIONER AS RESOURCE PERSON.

ANNEXURE P3(a):

COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DT 22.5.2013.

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES :

NIL.

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE bp

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

--------------------------------------- R.P. No.93 of 2015 In W.P.C. No.28763 OF 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2015

O R D E R

'No error apparent on the face of the records' is brought out. The scope of power with regard to the review has been explained by the Apex Court in many on occasion including as per AIR 1995 SC 455 (Smt. Meera Bhanja V. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury) holding that, it shall not be misconstrued or misunderstood as a substitute for appeal. The remedy of the petitioner lies elsewhere, if aggrieved. Interference is declined and the Review Petition is dismissed.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sp