IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2011 / 4TH SRAVANA 1933 RP.No. 531 of 2011(S) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OPCAT.97/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- NASEEMABI P.K., W/O.AHAMED P.P., AGED 30 YEARS, PURAKKAD, KADAMAT, LAKSHADWEEP. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR SRI.V.B.NARAYANAN SRI.ANIYANKUNJU VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ADMINISTRATOR, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI. 2. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION, KAVARATTI D 682555. ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC,LAKSHADWEEP ADMN FOR R1-2 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= R.P. No. 531 of 2011 in O.P.(CAT) No. 97 of 2011 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 26th day of July, 2011 O R D E R Barkath Ali, J. This is a petition to review the judgment of this Court in O.P.(CAT) No.97/2011 dated March 11, 2011 dismissing the said O.P. 2. The above O.P. was filed challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A.No.No.521 of 2009 dated August 5, 2010. The petitioner applied for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Mathematics) in response to Ext.P1 notification dated October 9, 2007 issued by the Director of Education under the Administration of Union Territory of Lakshadweep. Two vacancies were notified in Ext.P1. In the select list prepared by the Administration the petitioner was included in the wait list as the sole candidate. She had challenged the select list before the Central Administrative Tribunal, RP 531/2011 2 Ernakulam Bench contending that the appointing authority had not notified the entire vacancies available at the time of the issue of Ext.P1 notification. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions dismissed the O.A. holding that there was no irregularity in the selection process. The petitioner has challenged the said order in the above O.P. After hearing both parties this Court found that the petitioner had failed to show that as on the date of Ext.P1 notification any other vacancy than the two which were notified in Ext.P1 was available and dismissed the above O.P. 3. The petitioner has now filed the review petition contending that even at the time of Ext.P1 notification there was more than two vacancies available. We find no merit in the above contention. 4. No document was produced by the petitioner to show that at the time of Ext.P1 notification any other vacancy was available. That apart, two persons who were selected as per the select list have already been appointed RP 531/2011 3 in May, 2008. The counsel for the petitioner was not able to point out any error apparent on the face of the record to review the impugned judgment. 5. Therefore, we find no merit in this petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mn.