IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2011 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1933 RP.No. 805 of 2010(E) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.16088/2009 Dated 15/02/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- MARY STEPHEN, AGED 38, D/O.STEPHEN K.P., NAMBUKULANGARA, POLLEATHAI P.O. KALAVOOR, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THULASI HILLS, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM. 5. ASST.COMMISSIONER, DEPT.OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM. 6. THE SHIRATSTHADHAR, DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM. 7. THE MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KOTTAYAM. 8. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN, R2 AND R3 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jma C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.805 of 2010 in W.P(C) No. 16088 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2011 O R D E R The writ petitioner is the review petitioner. Review petitioner seeks review of the judgment dated 15.2.2010 in the above captioned writ petition. The review petitioner was a rank holder in the supplementary list for Latin Catholic Community published by the Public Service Commission on 5.12.2007 for appointment to the post of Lower Division Typist in various departments pursuant to the notification dated 31.12.2005. In the writ petition the prayer was for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent thereunder to report the existing vacancies in the post of L.D Typist in Kottayam District to enable advice and appointment from Ext.P2 ranked list wherein the petitioner's name was included. However, taking note the fact that the main list had exhausted on 28.3.2009 and vacancies which were available in the post of L.D Typist up to and prior to 28.3.2009 were all reported to the Public Service Commission and further that candidates were advised against the said RP No. 805/2010 2 reported vacancies this Court dismissed the said writ petition. In fact, it was dismissed following the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court that a supplementary list cannot outlive the main list in Nair Service Society Vs. District Officer, Kerala Public Service Commission reported in 2003(3) KLT 1126. The review petitioner seeks to review the said judgment. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner and also having perused the grounds raised in the review petition, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has not brought out any error that is apparent on the face of the record calling for interference invoking review jurisdiction. Obviously, the settled position is that a judgment cannot be re-written by invoking the review jurisdiction. In that view of the matter, there is absolutely no merit in the review petition and it is liable to fail. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge