AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 115 words
Sathish Ninan, J
1.
This Review Petition is at the instance of respondents 1 to 3 in the Writ Petition. The contention is that, Antony Stejo's case(2019(1) KLT 556) and Venugopal's case (2019 SCC Online KER 1180) relied on in the judgment sought to be reviewed, were dealing with making of regular appointments and not temporary appointments.
2.
The said cases dealt with temporary filling up of substantive vacancies in violation of Rule 9 of part II of Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules. The contention of the review petitioners is without substance.
3.
There is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting entertaining of the review.
Review Petition is accordingly dismissed.