IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2007 / 29TH SRAVANA 1929 RP.No. 967 of 2006(G) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.36400/2004 Dated 19/07/2006 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------ M.J.JOSEPH, S/O.M.J.JOHN, ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR, ARMED RESERVE, KOZHIKODE RURAL, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOZHIKODE RURAL. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WYNAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.K. RAVIKRISHNAN. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P. 967 of 2006 in WP.(C) No.36400 of 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of August, 2007 ORDER This is an application for review. Case of the petitioner was that though petitioner was included in the waiting list by Ext.P1, he did not take charge in the local police. Ext.P5 is an order which evidences that petitioner was transferred back to District Armed Reserve on his request. Petitioner challenges the same. This court found that it is difficult to accept the petitioner's contention that pursuant to Ext.P1 he did not take charge and that it was after taking charge in the local police that he made a request for repatriation back to the Armed Reserve and further that when he made a request and got a transfer to the Armed Reserve, he got bottom seniority apparently treating both as separate units. It was also found that Ext.P5, which was challenged by the petitioner was in October, 1993, the writ petition was filed challenging the same in 2004, that is after 11 years. I do not think that the petitioner has made out any ground for reviewing the judgment particularly having regard to the limits for R.P.967/2006. 2 reviewing the judgment. The Review Petition is dismissed. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb