Kerala High Court
Kripa K K vs State Of Kerala on 2 June, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
2025:KER:38467
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1947
R.P. NO. 1223 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.10.2024 IN OP(KAT) NO.349
OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
ANGEL MARY J. N.
AGED 30 YEARS
W/O ALEX JOSEPH, NURSING OFFICER, GOVERNMENT
MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, THIRUVANTHAPURAM,
RESIDING AT AGRIMA 2, VADAKKUMBHAGAM,
ERAVIPURAM,P.O KOLLAM, PIN - 691011.
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ
SMT.ANN MARIA JOHNSON
SRI.SANJAY JOHNSON
SHRI.JOHN GOMEZ
SHRI.ARUN JOHNY
SMT.DEEBU R.
SHRI.ABIN JACOB MATHEW
SHRI.SANJITH JOHNSON
SHRI.SARAN A.
2025:KER:38467
2
R.P.No.1223 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.349 of 2024 &
R.P.No.1169 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.367 of 2024
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT,HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN
- 682031.
2 THE DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION (DME), MEDICAL
COLLEGE THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695011.
3 THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITYS SECRETARY, KPSC OFFICE,
PATTOM PALACE, THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033.
SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SR.GOVT.PLEADER
SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 02.06.2025, ALONG WITH RP.1169/2024, THE
COURT ON 02.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:38467
3
R.P.No.1223 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.349 of 2024 &
R.P.No.1169 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.367 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1947
RP NO. 1169 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.10.2024 IN OP(KAT) NO.367
OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
KRIPA K K
AGED 42 YEARS
W/O BENOY K S ,WORKING AS NURSING OFFICER,
HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT
MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE, THRISSUR, RESIDING AT
KANGAPARAMBIL HOUSE MINALOOR P.O., THRISSUR,
PIN - 680581.
BY ADV SHRI.P.RAVEENDRAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THRIUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL HEALTH EDUCATION(DME)
MEDICAL COLLEGE, THRIUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695011.
2025:KER:38467
4
R.P.No.1223 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.349 of 2024 &
R.P.No.1169 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.367 of 2024
3 THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KPSC OFFICE,
PATTOM PALACE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695033.
4 RESHMI R NAIR
AGED 36 YEARS
D/O RAVEENDRAN NAIR N. K. WORKING AS NURSING
OFFICER,HEALTH &FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
INSTITUTE OF CHEST DISEASES, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL
COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE-673008, RESIDING AT
SREEKRIPA, ADIYOTTIL, MAYANAD P O., KOZHIKODE.
5 GEETHU K
AGED 37 YEARS
W/O SIVAKUMAR G., WORKING AS NURSING OFFICER,
HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SREE
AVITTOM THIRUNAL HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695011, RESIDING AT MANOJ BHAVAN,
NEDUVILAKKARA, MAYYANAD P O., KOLLAM, PIN -
691304.
6 MINU MARY JOHN
AGED 35 YEARS
W/O ISSAC GEORGE, WORKING AS NURSING OFFICER,
HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT., GOVERNMENT
TDMCH VANDANAM, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688005, RESIDING
AT KULATHINGAL HOUSE, NELLIMOODU, KULATHUPUZHA
P O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691310.
7 NINU V
AGED 32 YEARS
W/O BIMAL K. L.,WORKING AS NURSING OFFICER,
HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, INSTITUTE
OF MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH
HOSPITAL,GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE,KOZHIKODE-
673008, RESIDING AT ANAMIKA KSHB COLONY,
KOZHIKODE.
8 SAMEERA T A
AGED 33 YEARS
W/O NAWAF M V., WORKING AS NURSING OFFICER,
HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
2025:KER:38467
5
R.P.No.1223 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.349 of 2024 &
R.P.No.1169 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.367 of 2024
MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE, KUTHIRAVATTOM P.Ο.,
KOZHIKODE-673016, RESIDING AT MELVEETIL HOUSE,
CHENNAMANGALLUR P O., MUKKOM VIA, MALAPPURAM.
SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SR.GOVT.PLEADER
SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 30.05.2025, ALONG WITH RP.1223/2024, THE
COURT ON 02.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:38467
6
R.P.No.1223 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.349 of 2024 &
R.P.No.1169 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.367 of 2024
ANIL K. NARENDRAN & P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------------------
R.P.No.1223 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.349 of 2024
and
R.P.No.1169 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.367 of 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2025
ORDER
P.G. Ajithkumar, J.
The petitioners in the respective original petitions have
filed these applications for review filed under Section 114 read
with Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(CPC).
2. The original petitions involved here and also a
connected matter were disposed of as per the common
judgment dated 04.10.2024 owing to the fact that questions
involved were the same. The petitioners would contend that
errors were crept in the said common judgment and therefore
the same is liable to be reviewed and the original petitions are
decided in accordance with law. The 3rd respondent filed a
counter-affidavit controverting the contentions in the
applications for review.
2025:KER:38467
R.P.No.1223 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.349 of 2024 &
R.P.No.1169 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.367 of 2024
3. Heard the respective counsel for the petitioners,
the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned
Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent.
4. The essential contentions raised in support of the
plea for review are that the feeder categories eligible for
applying for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in
Nursing as per Annexure A1 notification were from two
different departments, namely, Department of Medical
Education and Department of Health Services and the law
applicable was the one laid down in Sreejith K.K. v. Vinod
[2019 (1) KHC 261]. But this court departed from the said
principle and that occasioned in holding in the common
judgement that those whose probation was declared could
alone apply.
5. It was further contended that the question
concerning qualification of the applicants to the post of
Assistant Professor in Nursing should not have been decided
in the context of Rule 2(13) of Part I of the Kerala State and
Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 (KS&SSR), but only in the
2025:KER:38467
R.P.No.1223 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.349 of 2024 &
R.P.No.1169 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.367 of 2024
light of the provisions of Rule 5, whereas the court held
otherwise. It has also been contended that the interpretation
of Rule 2(13) as adopted in the present judgment is incorrect
inasmuch as a contextual interpretation was warranted owing
to the prelude in the Rule that "unless there is anything
repugnant in the subject or context,- ......". A more
fundamental contention was raised that the PSC went wrong
in notifying the vacancies for the recruitment, "by transfer". It
should have been a direct recruitment since the appointment
intended was against substantive vacancy.
6. The learned Standing Counsel for the PSC would
submit that the judgment was rendered after considering all
the contentions in detail and therefore a review is not called
for. In that regard the decision of the Apex Court in Sanjay
Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer [(2024) 2 SCC 362]
was placed reliance on. The learned Standing Counsel further
submitted that a similar question was considered by this Court
in O.P.(KAT) No.293 of 2024. Although the Department was
different, application of Rule 2(13) of Part I of KS&SSR was
2025:KER:38467
R.P.No.1223 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.349 of 2024 &
R.P.No.1169 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.367 of 2024
the question for consideration. There the notification of the
PSC for recruitment by transfer and fixing the qualification for
the same have been upheld. It is pointed out that a review
application filed in that matter was turned down as well.
Accordingly, the learned Standing Counsel would submit that
these applications are liable only to be dismissed. The Senior
Government Pleader supported the stand taken by the learned
Standing Counsel.
7. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi [(1997) 8 SCC
715], the Apex Court made very pivotal observations:-
"9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open
to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error
apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not
self-evident and has to be detected by a process of
reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on
the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its
power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise
of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not
permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and
corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has
a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal
in disguise."
2025:KER:38467
R.P.No.1223 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.349 of 2024 &
R.P.No.1169 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.367 of 2024
8. In Shanti Conductors Private Limited v. Assam
State Electricity Board [(2020) 2 SCC 677], a three Judge
Bench of the Apex Court following Parsion Devi [(1997) 8
SCC 715] dismissed the review applications holding that the
scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, the
petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the
questions which have already been addressed and decided.
9. Later, in Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) Through Legal
Representatives v. Vinod Kumar Rawat [(2021) 13 SCC
1], the Apex Court restated the law with regard to the scope
of review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of
the CPC.
10. The law is clear that a power to review cannot be
exercised as an appellate power and has to be strictly
confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the
CPC. An error on the face of record must be such an error
which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should
not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points
where there may conceivably be two opinions.
2025:KER:38467
R.P.No.1223 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.349 of 2024 &
R.P.No.1169 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.367 of 2024
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner in R.P.No.
1169 of 2024 urged that if there is an error in the judgment,
which is concerning a substantive point of law, the court is
obliged to exercise its power of review. In that regard, the
learned counsel placed reliance on Deva Metal Powders
Pvt.Ltd. v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. [(2008) 2 SCC
439]. After holding so in the said decision, it was further held
that an error which has to be established by a long drawn
process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably
be two opinions, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on
the face of the record. Therefore, a wrong view or decision
taken in the judgment cannot be a reason for review
inasmuch as a review cannot be an appeal in disguise.
Keeping in view the aforementioned legal position, we proceed
to examine the contentions raised by the petitioners.
12. After considering the law laid down by this Court in
Sreejith K.K. [2019 (1) KHC 261] and Riju K. v. The
Controller, Legal Metrology [judgment dated 12.08.2014 in
O.P.(KAT) No.255 of 2014] we held that the qualification fixed
2025:KER:38467
R.P.No.1223 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.349 of 2024 &
R.P.No.1169 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.367 of 2024
by the PSC in Annexure A1 notification could not be said to be
incorrect. The provisions of Rule 2(13) of Part I of KS&SSR
were found to be holding the field. When we considered the
contentions of the parties in detail and for the reasons given
therein arrived at the aforementioned findings, it is not a case
falling for review as held in the aforementioned decisions.
13. Rule 2(13) of Part I of KS&SSR defines the
appointment by transfer. The contention of the petitioners
that the qualifications should have been fixed as in the case
of a direct recruitment reckoning the provisions of Rule 5 of
Part I of KS&SSR cannot be accepted. Whether or not the
recruitment is against a substantive vacancy when it is
provided in the Special Rules for by-transfer appointment,
the recruitment agency cannot be found fault with for
making recruitment by transfer. Rule 5 regulates only the
proportion and does not create any prohibition to
recruitment by transfer vis-a-vis the substantive vacancies.
We notice that the view taken in O.P.(KAT) No.293 of 2024,
to which we are in agreement with, fails the contention of
2025:KER:38467
R.P.No.1223 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.349 of 2024 &
R.P.No.1169 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.367 of 2024
the petitioners that Rule 2(13) of Part I of the KS&SSR has
no application.
14. The petitioners set forth a few other contentions,
which are anew. There is no scope for such new contentions in
an application for review. We are therefore of the view that
these applications lack merits.
Accordingly, these applications for review are dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
dkr
2025:KER:38467
R.P.No.1223 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.349 of 2024 &
R.P.No.1169 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.367 of 2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-A A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT IN O.P.(KAT)NO.367
OF 2024 DATED 04.10.2024.
2025:KER:38467
R.P.No.1223 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.349 of 2024 &
R.P.No.1169 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.367 of 2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
OP(KAT) NO. 349 OF 2024 PASSED BY THE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, DATED 04-10-2024
