IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 27TH BHADRA 1930 W.P(C).No. 27794 of 2008(H) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- P. SAINABA BEEVI, HEADMISTRESS (RETIRED FROM GOVT. L.P. SCHOOL, MYLAKKADU), KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT 'SHAJI MANZIL' BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SRI.V.K.SATHYANATHAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (PRC), GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASST. EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHATHANNUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 27794 OF 2008 H = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th day of September 2008 J U D G M E N T Admittedly, the re-option exercised by the petitioner was highly belated and was rejected. Despite that the petitioner has now exercised re-option once again and seeks a direction to consider the same. The justification appears to be that she is seeking only a notional fixation. In my view, that is not a reason for condonation of the delay that is already caused on the basis of which the re-option was once rejected. The fact that notional fixation alone is claimed also is no justification to make a fresh re- option. I do not find any reason to direct the respondents to consider the re-option or accept the re-option once again exercised by the petitioner. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-