IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932 RP.No. 501 of 2010(T) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.15991/2009 Dated 02/03/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- K.SARASWATHY,JOINT DIRECTOR(SELECTION GRADE),AND CHIEF-IN-CHARGE,EVALUATION DIVISION, STATE PLANNING BOARD,PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.FIROZ SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,PLANNING AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MEMBER SECRETARY,STATE PLANNING BOARD,PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SANDESH RAJA, R1, R2 SRI. ALEXANDER THOMAS, STANDING COUNSEL, PSC R3 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Revision Petition No.501 of 2010 in W.P.(C) 15991 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010 O R D E R The writ petitioner is the review petitioner. The writ petition was filed inter alia for a declaration that Rule 2(e) and note 2(e) of the Special Rules of the Kerala State Planning Service is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was dismissed as per Judgment dated 2.3.2010. In the operative portion of the said judgment it is stated thus:- “Though the petitioner raised grounds challenging Rule 2(e) and note (2) to Rule 2(e) of the Special Rules to the Kerala State Planning Service, they were not pressed into service. Therefore, I am not adverting to them.” Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 2.3.2010 the petitioner took up the matter in writ appeal as W.A.862/2010. When the writ appeal was taken up before the Division Bench, the petitioner sought for permission to withdraw the writ appeal to file review in WP(C)No.15991/2009.It is in the said circumstances that this Review Petition has come up for consideration. 2. The petitioner has raised grounds (a) to (f) in the review petition. Having gone through the aforesaid grounds, I am of the considered view that the Review Petitioner is, in fact, inviting RP 501/2010 2 this court to re-write the judgment, rather, to consider to re- open and re-hear the writ petition on merits. In fact, no ground has been raised pointing out any error that is apparent on the face of the record. In ground (e) the petitioner has taken up a contention that the above extracted observation in the judgment under review had occasioned on account of a bonafide mistake made by the counsel. It is true that a concession made by a counsel would not be binding on his client. But, I am of the considered view that the grounds raised in this review petition fall beyond the purview of review jurisdiction. While exercising review jurisdiction, I do not think that this Court will be justified in rewriting the judgment and, in fact, any such action would be beyond purview and scope of review jurisdiction. In short, I am of the view that on account of failure on the part of the petitioner in bringing bring out an error apparent on the face of the record, this court can only decline to exercise the review jurisdiction. Accordingly this review petition is dismissed. Sd/- C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE jma //true copy// P.A to Judge