State Of Kerala Represented By Its Secretary To Government vs Dr.G,Rajalekshmy Kunjamma

A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J

This Review Petition has been preferred by the State against the judgment dated 21.12.2021 in W.A.1614/2021. While dismissing the writ appeal preferred by the State against the judgment of a learned Single Judge, we found that the writ petitioner, who was appointed as Resident Medical Officer in a hospital had to be seen as an employee attached to the Sree Vidyadhiraja Homeopathic Medical College in as much as the hospital formed an integral part of the Homeopathic Medical College concerned. Accordingly, we upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge to the extent it held that the writ petitioner was entitled to the salary and other emoluments due to her for the period from her initial date of appointment (1.6.2005) upto 2012 when the Government ultimately accepted their liability to pay salary to the writ petitioner.

In the Review Petition, the State Government essentially relies on various documents to suggest that the initial appointment of the writ petitioner as Resident Medical Officer in the hospital attached to the Homeopathic Medical college concerned itself was contrary to the provisions of the regulations in as much as (a). the writ petitioner was not qualified for appointment as Resident Medical Officer on account of being over aged as per the regulations and (b). that the post of Resident Medical Officer itself was a tenure post for a maximum of two years and the writ petitioner could not have been appointed for a period beyond two years. We note, however, that the said objections in relation to the writ petitioner were not raised against her at any stage of the proceedings that culminated in our judgment in the writ Appeal. The said objections were not sustained against the writ petitioner even in Ext.P10 order of the Government that was impugned in the writ petition. We are therefore, of the view that the said contentions based on documents which were never produced before this Court at any stage in the writ proceedings, cannot be the basis for a Review Petition seeking a review of our judgment in the Writ Appeal. At the time of dismissal of the writ Appeal, we had made it clear that the benefit of the judgment in the Writ Appeal shall enure only to the writ petitioner and others similarly placed, who had pursued their claims before this Court through timely litigation already initiated by them and not to others. This, we feel, is a sufficient safeguard against other litigants approaching the State for similar reliefs, which appears to be the apprehension of the Government.

This Review Petition is dismissed accordingly.