IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2010 / 8TH SRAVANA 1932 RP.No. 550 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.1775/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT IN WA.NO.1775/09 ------------------------------------- SMITHA V.P.,W/O. SREEKUMAR .B, C-TYPE QUARTERS, 110 KV. SUB STATION, CHEVAYOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.SMITHA V.P.(PARTY-IN-PERSON) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN WA.NO.1740/06 -------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPRTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISION, PSC, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SRI.BASANT BALAJI,SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER -R1,R2 SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, STANDING COUNSEL-K.P.S.C THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. -------------------------------------------- R.P.NO.550 OF 2010 IN W.A. NO. 1775 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of July, 2010 ORDER Ravikumar, J. The appellant in the Writ Appeal is the review petitioner. She was a rank holder in Ext.P2 rank list published by the Kerala Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Educational Technology in the Kerala Collegiate Education under category-II. The Writ Appeal was dismissed taking into account the fact that Ext.P2 rank list had expired on 29.7.2007 and the Writ Petition was filed long later. The question whether the petitioner would have obtained advice and consequential appointment in case of reporting of one more vacancy was also taken into account while considering the Writ Appeal. It was after such consideration that the Writ Appeal was dismissed. It is seeking review of the judgment dismissing the Writ Appeal that this review petition has been filed. 2. We have gone through the grounds A to I raised in the review R.P. NO.550/2010 IN W.A.No.1775/2009 2 petition. They do not bring out any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference under the review jurisdiction. The review petitioner really challenges the correctness or sustainability of the conclusions and findings in the original judgment in this review petition as if in an appeal. In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to review the judgment in the Writ Appeal and accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc R.P. NO.550/2010 IN W.A.No.1775/2009 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C). NO. /2010 JUDGMENT June, 2010 R.P. NO.550/2010 IN W.A.No.1775/2009 4