Antony Dominic, J.
These review petitions are filed by the petitioners in O.P. (KAT)Nos.328, 333 and 340 of 2014 seeking review of the common judgment, dated 8th October, 2014, whereby the Original Petitions were disposed of upholding the common order passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal.
2. The contention now raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that by G.O.(MS)No.160/08/G.Edn. dated 15.9.2008, 74 posts of HSST (Senior) were created from the academic year 2007-08. It is stated that subsequently by G.O.(Rt) No.1011/09/Gl.Edn. dated 7.3.2009, the date of occurrence of vacancy was fixed as 15.9.2008. Accordingly, as a result of such shifting of vacancies from the academic year 2007-08 to 2008-09, the opportunity of the direct recruits like the petitioners who were included in rank list which was then valid was lost. According to the counsel, the shifting of vacancies as ordered by the Government is illegal and the validity of the latter Government Order was not even considered by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal or this Court in the judgment under review.
3. First of all, in paragraph 7 of the judgment under review itself, we have mentioned that this is not a contention which the petitioners have raised before the Tribunal. We have also taken note of the fact that among the three original petitions filed before this Court, the validity of the latter Government Order was raised only in the O.A. leading to O.P.(KAT)340/14. In such circumstances, we cannot say that the Tribunal's order or this Court's judgment is vitiated on the ground now pointed out.
4. Even otherwise Ext.P14, the latter Government Order, shows that according to the Government, the Director of Higher Secondary Education fixed the date of former Government Order, namely, 15.9.2008 as the date of occurrence of the vacancy for the reason that the appointment to the post cannot be made with retrospective effect.
This certainly, in the absence of any malafides pointed out is a valid reason.
For both these reasons, we are of the view that the judgment does not suffer from error requiring its review.
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge jes ANIL K. NARENDRAN, Judge