Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1. By order dated 23.07.2013 on I.A.No.520 of 2013, leave was granted and it was directed that the review petition be numbered. That was to enable consideration of the question as to whether there was any ground for review of the judgment, at the instance of the petitioners.
2. Today, we have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, who are third parties to the writ petition in which the judgment sought to be reviewed was delivered.
3. The impugned judgment concluded holding that the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, apply to the employees of the Municipal Common Service. That is a ratio laid as law in terms of that judgment. It appears that the persons seeking RP 612/13 -2-
review of the judgment lost their independent writ petitions by application of the judgment sought to be reviewed as a precedent. That position does not give room for an application for review. If the petitioners have a grievance that the judgment applied as precedent in their case is a wrong precedent or that the precedent is one wrongly decided, that is a matter to be agitated in appropriate superior courts. That is not a ground for review of the judgment, which was applied as a precedent. No application for review of that judgment by third parties can be entertained on that plea.
4. For the aforesaid reasons, this application for review does not lie, and is not eligible to be entertained.
In the result, this review petition is dismissed.
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE) jg