IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2011 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1932 RP.No. 104 of 2011 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.87/2011 Dated 21/01/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT ------------------------------------ JAYAKUMAR K.V., S/O.HARIDAS, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, KANIMANGALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------- 1. HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPD. BY REGISTRAR GENERAL, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPD. BY THE SECRETARY, LAW DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ------------------------------------------ R.P.No.104 of 2011 in W.A.No.87 of 2011 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of March, 2011 ORDER J.Chelameswar, C.J. This review petition is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 21st January, 2011 in W.A.No.87 of 2011. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is two fold. It is recorded in paragraph 4 of the said judgment as follows: “The appellant herein was initially appointed pursuant to the notification referred to above, but had to be dislodged from the service.“ 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said statement of fact was an inaccurate statement. The petitioner had only participated in the selection process, but not dislodged from the service. There is no dispute in this regard. In the circumstances, we direct that the above extracted sentence be deleted from the judgment. 4. The second grievance of the petitioner is that the above writ appeal was dismissed with exemplary costs. According to the petitioner, this Court decided to award exemplary costs in view of an erroneous belief that the petitioner was a person who was dislodged from service and therefore R.P.No.104 of 2011. - 2 - the imposition of costs is not justified. First of all, we are of the opinion that there is no basis for the assumption made by the petitioner. We have clearly stated in the said judgment that the approach of the petitioner to this Court in the circumstances of the case is an abuse of the process of the court and also that the petitioner made certain reckless allegations without even verifying the basic facts. In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order under review. The review petition is dismissed. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon Judge vns