IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2011 / 31ST ASHADHA 1933 RP.No. 530 of 2011 --------------------------- [AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.5600/2010 DATED 27/05/2010] .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------- MANJULA.V., ASSISTANT TEACHER, KOTTAKUNNU U.P SCHOOL,KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PAPPINISSERY. 4. THE MANAGER, KOTTAKUNNU U.P SCHOOL, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. P.P.JAYASREE, ASSISTANT TEACHER, KOTTAKUNNU U.P SCHOOL. 6. V.S. LAL, ASSISTANT TEACHER, KOTTAKUNNU U,P SCHOOL. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. L.G. SURESH BABU. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.P.NO.530/2011: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE (A): COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER. ANNEXURE (B): COPY OF THE G.O.(MS).NO.42/2011/G. EDN. DTD. 16/02/2011. ANNEXURE (C): COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 23/02/11. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Review Petition No.530 of 2011 in W.P.(C)No. 5600 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2011 O R D E R The writ petitioner is the review petitioner. The above captioned writ petition was dismissed as per judgment dated 27.5.2010. the petitioner seeks review of the said judgment. Along with the review petition the petitioner has produced Annexures (a), (b) and (c) documents. The contention is that the judgment of this Court in WPC No.5600/2010 holding that LPSA and UPSA is a single category is illegal and liable to be reviewed. In fact, grounds I to IV raised in the review petition would reveal that they all carry challenge against the judgment dated 27.5.2010. In other words, this review petition is virtually, an appeal in disguise. At any rate, they do not bring forth any error that is apparent on the face of records. The settled position of law is that by invoking the power under review jurisdiction a judgment cannot be re-written. In the said circumstances, I am of the view that there is no merit in this review petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge