JUDGMENT P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J. 1. Respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition seek review of the judgment in these Review petitions. 2. The petitioner in the writ petition was the Joint Director of the second respondent, hereinafter referred to as the C-DIT. He was placed under suspension by the first respondent, the State, on the basis of the request made by the Director, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, as per Ext.P5 order. He challenged Ext.P5 order in the writ petition. One of the grounds urged by the petitioner in the writ petition was that as per the Rules of Disciplinary Procedure of the employees of the C-DIT, the authority competent to place him under suspension is the Director of C-DIT and the Government has no role in that matter. It was also urged by the petitioner that the request of the Director, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau to place the petitioner under suspension was based on certain allegations raised against him while he was working in the Information Kerala Mission of the Government and there is, therefore, no reason to place the petitioner under suspension from the service of the C-DIT. 3. This Court found that the suspension of the petitioner by the Government is without authority of law. This Court also found that Ext.P5 order does not indicate any consideration as to the necessity to place the petitioner under suspension in the public interest. This Court further found that the respondents have not offered any explanation for recommending the suspension of the petitioner 6 years after he was relieved from the Information Kerala Mission. 4. The common ground urged in the review petitions is that the Rule of the C-DIT, as referred to in the judgment, which is required to be approved by the Government as per the Memorandum of Association of the CDIT has not been approved by the Government and as such, it has not taken effect. In this context, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner pointed out that going by the terms of the Memorandum of Association of the C-DIT, only Rules relating to the conditions of service of the employees of the C-DIT need to be approved by the Government and the Rules referred to in the judgment is not one relating to the conditions of service of the employees of the C-DIT. The said Rule, according to the counsel, has taken effect on 14/2/1994 when the Executive Committee of the C-DIT has approved it. It was also pointed out by him that the said Rule is being applied in the case of all other employees of the C-DIT. 5. The ground urged by the review petitioners is not a ground raised at the time of hearing of the writ petition. The Rule referred to in the judgment had been extracted in the writ petition as the Rule applicable to the petitioner. The averment made by the petitioner in the writ petition in that connection had not been refuted by the respondents. 6. Further, it is not solely based on the Rule referred to in the judgment, the relief has been granted to the petitioner. The relief has been granted to the petitioner also based on the findings that Ext.P5 order does not indicate any consideration as to the necessity to place the petitioner under suspension in the public interest and that the respondents have not offered any explanation for recommending the suspension of the petitioner 6 years after he was relieved from the Information Kerala Mission. The said findings are not under attack on any grounds available in the review jurisdiction. When a judgment rests on more than one reason, a review of the same cannot be sought on the ground that one of the reasons is either incorrect or unsustainable in law. I, therefore, find no reason to review the judgment. Review petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.