IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 RP.No. 263 of 2010(F) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.20844/2006 Dated 12/03/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION. 2. THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (AUDIT) KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, P.O.MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.T.T.MUHAMOOD RESPONDENT(S): WRIT PETITIONER -------------------------- RAMACHANDRAN V.K., 'SMRITHI', KARIPPATH, P.O.MATTHRA, AREECODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.P.K.RAVIKUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P. No. 263 of 2010 in W.P.(C) No.20844 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010 O R D E R The State has come up with this review petition seeking review of my judgment dated 12.03.2008 in W.P.(C) No.20844/2006. The only relief I have granted in the writ petition is a chance of re-option to the petitioner in the writ petition to minimize the effects of re-fixation on the basis audit objection. Admittedly the audit objection was raised long after the last date stipulated in the Government orders for submitting re-option. That being so, I do not find anything wrong in granting a chance of re-option to the petitioner to minimize the adverse effects of the audit objection. Therefore I do not find any ground to review my judgment. Accordingly the review petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/