[Cites 20, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Shoyab K.A on 5 February, 2026
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
RP Nos.1494, 1506 and 1545 of 2025 2026:KER:9394
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 16TH MAGHA, 1947
RP NO. 1494 OF 2025
AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 06.10.2025 IN WA NO.382
OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1, 2 AND 5 IN WA:
1 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION SECRETARIAT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
BY ADV ANOTNY MUKKATH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT AND RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 IN WA:
1 BIJITH P
SECTION OFFICER (HG) KANNUR UNIVERSITY (RESIDING AT
67070 NEW ADDRESS S/O.P.BALAKRISHNAN, SECTION OFFICER,
KANNUR UNIVERSITY, (RESIDING AT AKSHARAM, NIRMALAGIRI
P.O, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670701
2 KANNUR UNIVERSITY
REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR, KANNUR UNIVERSITY CIVIL
STATION P.O KANNUR, PIN - 670002
3 THE REGISTRAR
2
RP Nos.1494, 1506 and 1545 of 2025 2026:KER:9394
KANNUR UNIVERSITY CIVIL STATION P.O KANNUR., PIN -
670002
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. I.V. PRAMOD, SC, KANNUR UNIVERSITY
THIS REVIEW PETITION WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 05.01.2026 ALONG
WITH RP Nos.1506 and 1545 of 2025, THE COURT ON 5.2.2026 PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
3
RP Nos.1494, 1506 and 1545 of 2025 2026:KER:9394
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 16TH MAGHA, 1947
RP NO. 1506 OF 2025
AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 06.10.2025 IN WA NO.173
OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN WA:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT ,GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
SOCIAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH, SR. GP
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS & RESPONDENTS 4 TO 10 IN WA:
1 SHOYAB K.A
S/O. K.I. ALI, SECTION OFFICER, M.G. UNIVERSITY FRONT
OFFICE, 4 SECTION , MG UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM RESIDING
AT 'GAZAL', LAKSHMINAGAR, KAVILPAD, OLAVAKKODE,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT,, PIN - 678012
2 KAVITHA K.S
W/O. VINOD T.R., SECTION OFFICER, BSCSS 14, MG
UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM RESIDING AT SOWPARNIKA VALLE,
FLAT 3K ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM-, PIN - 686562
4
RP Nos.1494, 1506 and 1545 of 2025 2026:KER:9394
3 M.G. UNIVERSITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM,,
PIN - 686560
4 THE REGISTRAR
M.G. UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM, -, PIN -
686560
5 THE VICE CHANCELLOR
MG UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZZHA, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686560
6 ANIL KUMAR M.U
S/O. N. UTHAMAN, RESIDING AT GAURISANKARAM, EROOR
P.O., ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN, PIN - 691312
7 USHA V.D
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (HIGHER GR.)MAHATMA GANDHI
UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM, RESIDING AT
PRANAVOM, ONAMTHURUTH P.O., EATTUMANUR P.O., KOTTAYAM
-, PIN - 686602
8 MOHANAN K.T.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR (ACAD), MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686590
9 FARIJA MOIDEEN
D/O. KUNJUMOIDEEN, AMBILICHIRAYIL, VELUR P.O., VELOOR,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686003
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN
SRI.M.A.ASIF
SRI.P.C SASIDHARAN
ADITHYA RAJEEV
SRI. SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, MG UNIVERSITY
THIS REVIEW PETITION WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 05.01.2026 ALONG
WITH RP NOS.1494 AND 1545 OF 2025, THE COURT ON 5.2.2026 PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
5
RP Nos.1494, 1506 and 1545 of 2025 2026:KER:9394
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 16TH MAGHA, 1947
RP NO. 1545 OF 2025
AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 06.10.2025 IN WA NO.209
OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN WA:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-, PIN - 695001
2 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
SOCIAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH, SR.G.P
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS AND RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6 IN WA:
1 KAVITHA .S
AGED 41 YEARS
D/O.R.SELVARAJ,SECTION OFFICER(HIGHER GRADE, MAHATMA
GANDHI UNIVERSITY,PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P .O,KOTTAYAM-
686560,RESIDING AT RAJ
BHAVAN,PUZHAVATHU,CHANGANASSERY,KOTTAYAM,, PIN -
686101
2 RADHAKRISHANAN V.S
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O. V.K. SIVANANDY, SECTION OFFICER, MAHATMA GANDHI
6
RP Nos.1494, 1506 and 1545 of 2025 2026:KER:9394
UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O,KOTTAYAM -686560,
RESIDING AT VADAKKEMANGLATH HOUSE, MONASTRY ROAD,
KARIKKAMURI, ERNAKULAM-, PIN - 682011
3 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGISTRAR
PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O,KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686560
4 THE REGISTRAR
M.G. UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM,
PIN - 686560
5 ANIL KUMAR M.U
S/O. N. UTHAMAN, RESIDING AT GAURISANKARAM, EROOR
P.O., ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 691312
BY ADVS.
SMT.P.K.NANDINI
SRI.A.P.JAYARAJ (ANJILIKKAL)
SRI.JUBYRAJ.A.P
SMT.JISHA MOL CLEETUS
SRI.M.A ASIF
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, MG UNIVERSITY
THIS REVIEW PETITION WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 05.01.2026 ALONG
WITH RP NOS.1494 AND 1506 OF 2025, THE COURT ON 5.2.2026 PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
7
RP Nos.1494, 1506 and 1545 of 2025 2026:KER:9394
COMMON ORDER
Muralee Krishna, J.
R.P.No.1494 of 2025 is filed by respondents 1, 2 and 5 in
W.A.No.382 of 2025, R.P.No.1506 of 2025 is filed by respondents
1 to 3 in W.A.No.173 of 2025 and R.P.No.1545 of 2025 is filed by
respondents 1 to 3 in W.A.No.209 of 2025, under Order XLVII Rule
1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908,
seeking review of the common judgment dated 06.10.2025,
passed by this Court in those writ appeals.
2. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader
appearing for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the party
respondents, the learned Standing Counsel for Kannur University,
and the learned Standing Counsel for Mahatma Gandhi University.
3. According to the learned Senior Government Pleader, the
common judgment dated 06.10.2025 passed by this Court is
suffering from error apparent on the face of the record. The
learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the 1st proviso
to Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
('2016 Act', for short) provides that the reservation in promotion
shall be in accordance with such instructions as are issued by the
appropriate Government from time to time. Such a provision was
RP Nos.1494, 1506 and 1545 of 2025 2026:KER:9394
not there in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ( '1995 Act',
for short). As per Schedule 7 List II Entry 41 of the Constitution
of India, the State Public Services; State Public Service
Commission are coming under the State list. It is on the strength
of the aforesaid constitutional right, Section 34 of the 2016 Act
provides the State Government the right to give instructions
regarding reservation in promotion to persons suffering from
benchmark disability. Similarly, Rules 14 to 19 of the Kerala State
and Subordinate Service Rules ('KS & SSR', in short) Part II also
provide for reservation in state service. A person suffering from
benchmark disability who gets appointment in the entry cadre will
automatically get promotion based on seniority, unless
disqualified. There is no provision for reservation in promotion in
the State, as undertaken by the Central Government. The roster
points for reservation in promotion maintained by the State
Government are entirely different from those of the Central
Government. Therefore, there is no reservation provided for
persons suffering from disability in the posts that are less than
five in a cadre. The power of the State Government vested under
RP Nos.1494, 1506 and 1545 of 2025 2026:KER:9394
Entry 41 of List II of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India
is an independent power, and it is not dependent upon the office
memorandum issued by the Central Government. Therefore
Ext.P7 office memorandum cannot be applied to the appointments
under the State Government. This Court failed to consider these
aspects while passing the impugned judgment.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents
in the different review petitions submitted that there is no error
apparent on the face of the record in the judgment. The learned
counsel for the party respondents in R.P.No.1545 of 2025 further
submitted that, in fact, no error in the judgment is pointed out in
the review petition, and instead they are filed as an appeal against
the judgment of this Court. Ext.P7 office memorandum was issued
by the Central Government to comply with the directions of the
Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph [(2021)
9 SCC 208]. The learned counsel further submitted that Sections
32 and 33 of the 1995 Act have to be read along with Section 47
of the said Act. In the 2016 Act, Sections 33 and 34 correspond
to Sections 32 and 33 of the 1995 Act. Similarly, Section 20 of
the 2016 Act corresponds to Section 47 of the 1995 Act. In
RP Nos.1494, 1506 and 1545 of 2025 2026:KER:9394
Leesamma Joseph [(2021) 9 SCC 208], the Apex Court
considered the aforesaid provisions in the 1995 Act and held that
reservation in promotion has to be granted irrespective of the
mode of appointment. The learned counsel further pointed out
that in ground (I) of the review petition the petitioners stated that
identification of the promotion posts was already done by the
Government in accordance with the directives issued by the Apex
Court and the post which is sought to be filled by making
promotion by applying reservation is not a post identified by the
competent authority, whereas in paragraph 3 of the counter
affidavit filed in W.P.(C)No. 13766 of 2024 it is stated by the
review petitioners that 1264 entry cadres posts in various
Government Departments were identified by the expert committee
constituted as suitable for persons with benchmark disability.
There is no claim in the counter affidavit that posts for granting
reservation in promotion were identified by the Government. The
learned counsel vehemently submitted that the instructions
mentioned in Section 34 of the 2016 Act will not give a right to
the State Government to fix the roster deviating from the object
and purpose of the 1995 Act and 2016 Act and the principles
RP Nos.1494, 1506 and 1545 of 2025 2026:KER:9394
behind granting reservation in promotion to persons suffering
from benchmark disability.
5. The learned counsel for the party respondents in
R.P.No.1506 of 2025, apart from making similar submissions as
that of the learned counsel for the party respondents in
R.P.No.1545 of 2025, submitted that as per the Government Order
dated 06.05.2017, the Government has changed the roster points
for reservation from 33, 66 and 99 to 1, 34 and 67. This roster is
again changed by the Government while issuing orders regarding
reservation in promotion, and the same is set aside by this Court.
The principles stated in the judgments of the Apex Court, even
though based on the 1995 Act, the same are applicable to 2016
Act. The learned counsel further submitted that even after the
common judgment dated 06.10.2025, the Government has issued
a notification dated 28.11.2025 by inserting Rule 28B to KS & SSR,
which shows that the Government has no intention to comply with
the directions of the Apex Court as well as this Court.
6. The learned counsel for the party respondents in R.P.No.
1494 of 2025 submitted that the review petitioners have not made
out any of the grounds under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section
RP Nos.1494, 1506 and 1545 of 2025 2026:KER:9394
114 of the CPC to entertain the review petitions. The learned
counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Parsion Devi
v. Sumitri Devi [(1997) 8 SCC 715] in support of his arguments
regarding the absence of error apparent on the face of the record
in the impugned judgment. The learned counsel further submitted
that Sections 33 and 34 of the 2016 Act are in pari materia with
Sections 32 and 33 of the 1995 Act. By pointing out serial Nos.13
and 14 of List I- Union List in the 7th schedule of the Constitution
of India, the learned counsel submitted that it is on the strength
of the said power Government has enacted the 1995 Act and 2016
Act in consonance with international treaties, which is evident
from the preamble of both the Acts. Therefore, the State
Government cannot implement the provisions of the Act at its
whims and fancies without looking into the purpose behind the
said Act. It is only the Kerala Government that has fixed the roster
points different from those fixed by the Central Government.
7. The learned Standing Counsel for the Kannur University
would submit that if the promotion posts have fewer than 25 in
numbers, it will be difficult to implement the direction in the
judgment passed by this Court.
RP Nos.1494, 1506 and 1545 of 2025 2026:KER:9394
8. The learned Standing Counsel for the Mahatma Gandhi
University would submit that the direction in the judgment will
lead to acceleration in promotion for disabled candidates above
their juniors, which will create an anomalous situation.
9. In order to understand the circumstances that entitle
the court to exercise its power of review, it would be appropriate
to go through the provisions concerned as well as the law on the
point laid down by the judgments of the Apex Court as well as this
Court. Section 114 and Order XLVII of CPC are the relevant
provisions as far as the review of a judgment or order of a Court
is concerned.
10. Section 114 of the CPC reads thus:
"114. Review-
Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself
aggrieved-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by
this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by
this Code, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small
Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court
which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court
may make such order thereon as it thinks fit."
11. Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC reads thus:
RP Nos.1494, 1506 and 1545 of 2025 2026:KER:9394
"1. Application for review of judgment.
(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed,
but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed,
or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small
Causes,
and who, from the discovery of new and important matter
or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was
not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him
at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or
on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face
of the record of for any other sufficient reason, desires to
obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against
him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which
passed the decree or made the order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may
apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the
pendency of an appeal by some other party except where
the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and
the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to
the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the
review.
Explanation-
The fact that the decision on a question of law on which
the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or
modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in
any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such
RP Nos.1494, 1506 and 1545 of 2025 2026:KER:9394
judgment."
12. It is trite that review power under Section 114 read with
Order XLVII of the CPC is available to be exercised only on setting
up any one of the following grounds by the petitioners.
(i) discovery of a new and important matter or evidence, or
(ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or
(iii) any other sufficient reason.
13. In Northern India Caterers v. Lt. Governor of
Delhi [(1980) 2 SCC 167], the Apex Court held that under the
guise of review, a litigant cannot be permitted to reagitate and
reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and
decided.
14. The Apex Court in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi
[(1997) 8 SCC 715] held thus:
"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
RP Nos.1494, 1506 and 1545 of 2025 2026:KER:9394
allowed to be "an appeal in disguise".
(Underline supplied)
15. In N.Anantha Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria [(2013) 15
SCC 534], the Apex Court held that the mistake apparent on the
face of the record means that the mistake is self-evident, needs
no search, and stares at its face. Surely, review jurisdiction is not
an appeal in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of the
matter on merits.
16. In Sasi (D) through LRs v. Aravindakshan Nair and
others [AIR 2017 SC 1432], the Apex Court held that in order
to exercise the power of review, the error has to be self-evident
and is not to be found out by a process of reasoning.
17. In Shanthi Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Assam State
Electricity Board and others [(2020) 2 SCC 677], the Apex
Court, by referring to Parsion Devi [(1997) 8 SCC 715], held
thus:
"The scope of review is limited and under the guise of
review, petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and
reargue the questions, which have already been addressed
and decided".
18. Again, in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v K.L. Rathi Steels
Ltd [2024 SCC Online SC 1090], the Apex Court considered the
RP Nos.1494, 1506 and 1545 of 2025 2026:KER:9394
grounds for review in detail and held thus:
"Order XVLII does not end with the circumstances as S.114,
CPC, the substantive provision, does. Review power under
S.114 read with Order XLVII, CPC is available to be
exercised, subject to fulfillment of the above conditions, on
setting up by the review petitioner any of the following
grounds:
(i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence; or
(ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or
(iii) any other sufficient reason."
19. In Sujatha Aniyeri v. Kannur University [2025
KHC OnLine 212], this Court, after considering the point, what
constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record, held that
review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The review does
not permit rehearing of the matter on merits. If the direction in
the judgment was erroneous, then the remedy was to challenge
the same by filing an appeal and not by filing a review petition.
20. We have appreciated the rival submissions made at the
Bar in the light of the principles laid down in the aforementioned
judgments regarding review jurisdiction. From the judgment
dated 06.10.2025, it is clear that this Court considered the
contentions raised in the appeals in detail by referring to the
materials placed on record as well as the principles laid down by
RP Nos.1494, 1506 and 1545 of 2025 2026:KER:9394
the Apex Court as well as this Court regarding the reservation to
be provided to the persons suffering from benchmark disability, in
view of the provisions contained in 1995 Act and 2016 Act.
21. The contentions now raised by the review petitioners were
already considered and answered by this Court in various
paragraphs of the judgment. Though the judgment of the Apex
Court in Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind
[2013) 10 SCC 772] was rendered considering Sections 32 and
33 of the 1995 Act, it was the principles laid down in that
judgment that were considered by this Court. The contentions
regarding the right of the State to fix the roster points in view of
Section 34 of the 2016 Act was also answered in detail in
paragraph 44 of the judgment.
22. Having considered the pleadings and materials on
record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no sufficient
reason to hold that the petitioners have made out any of the
grounds provided under Order XLVII Rule 1 and Section 114 of the
CPC to review the common judgment dated 06.10.2025 passed by
this Court in the writ appeals. In fact, the petitioners filed these
review petitions as if they are challenging the findings in the
RP Nos.1494, 1506 and 1545 of 2025 2026:KER:9394
judgment in an appeal. The attempt of the petitioners appears as
to invoke the review jurisdiction as an appeal in disguise.
Therefore, the review petitions are liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the review petitions stand dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
