M. PEER MOHAMMAD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks review of this Court's judgment in W.A. No. 1756/2010 dated 11/10/10 mainly on the basis of the observations in the last paragraph of the judgment of this Court in W.P.C. No. 25127/10 in Shibi v. State of Kerala ( : 2010 (3) KHC 774). Sri. Ramaswamy Pillai, the learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that the petitioner left the services of the society only on 31/08/09. There was inordinate delay on the part of the PSC in publishing the result of the examination. Had it not been for that delay, the petitioner would have been eligible for appointment in the quota reserved for employees of member society under Rule 187. Counsel therefore requested that the judgment be reviewed to the limited extent of observing that if there are vacancies in this particular quota, the petitioner's case also be considered. We have heard Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC also. Sri. Sasidharan submitted that the objective which underlies the provision for reservation under Rule 187 is that the benefit should be given to those who continued in the service of the society concerned and not to those who left the service of the society.

(2.) WE find some force in the submission of Sri. Sasidharan. Even otherwise, we do not think that the ground urged based on the observations of this Court in a subsequent judgment can be a ground for review in view of the well delineated contours of this Court's jurisdiction for reviewing its own judgments and orders. R.P. fails and the same will stand dismissed.