Shiji S.V vs Kerala Public Service Commission
2026 Latest Caselaw 1264 Ker

Kerala High Court

Shiji S.V vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 6 February, 2026

RP NO.60/2026                        1



                                              2026:KER:10345


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
                              &
         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
  FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 17TH MAGHA, 1947

                     RP NO.60 OF 2026

         ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.11.2025 IN
        WP(C) NO.12554/2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:

    1    SHIJI S.V.,
         AGED 46 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF VASU P.
         SREEKALA HOUSE, IRINGAL P.O.,
         KOZHIKODE DIST., PIN - 673521

    2    BINDHU P.P.
         AGED 48 YEARS,DAUGHTER OF SANKARAN P.P.
         PATINHATTA PURAYIL HOUSE,
         KOVVAPPURAM POST, KUNHIMANGALAM,
         KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670309

    3    SURABHI S.B.
         AGED 41 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF BALAN E.K.
         VASANTHAM HOUSE, ULLIYERI,
         KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673620

         BY ADVS.SRI.K.A.MOHAMED HARIS
         SMT.ANEESA NAZAR
         SRI.K.ASHOK SARAN
         SRI.K.M.SALIM


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

    1    KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
         PATTAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
         REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 695004
 RP NO.60/2026                      2



                                             2026:KER:10345


    2    KERALA WATER AUTHORITY (KWA)
         JALABHAVAN, VELLYAMBALAM,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
         REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
         PIN - 695033

    3    THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
         PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT,
         GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

    4    THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
         HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
         GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

    5    THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
         TECHNICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
         SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

    6    THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
         WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
         SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

    7    THE CHIEF SECRETARY
         GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

    8    LBS CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
         VIKAS BHAVAN, EXTRA POLICE RD, UNIVERSITY OF
         KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, NANDAVANAM, PALAYAM,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST, REPRESENTED BY ITS
         DIRECTOR, PIN - 695033.

         BY ADVS.
         P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC, R1
         GEORGY JOHNY, SC, KWA, R2
         SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE, GOVT.PLEADER, R3 TO R7
         B.RAVISANKAR, R8, SC, LBS

THIS REVIEW     PETITION HAVING   COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.01.2026,     THE   COURT ON    06.02.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 RP NO.60/2026                              3



                                                            2026:KER:10345


                               ORDER

Dated this the 06th day of February, 2026

This Review Petition is filed seeking to review the judgment

dated 21.11.2025 in W.P.(C) No.12554 of 2025. Review petitioner

was the petitioner in the said W.P.(C).

2. The W.P.(C) was filed by the review petitioners who are the

applicants to the post of LD Clerk in Kerala Water Authority (KWA),

aggrieved by the rejection of their application and by the exclusion

of their names in the probability list published by the Kerala Public

Service Commission (KPSC). They had in the W.P.(C) inter alia

sought to quash Exhibit P17 Probability List and prayed for a

declaration that they who possess the Data Entry and Software

Certificate from the Lal Bahadur Sastri Centre for Science and

Technology (LBS) possesses the required qualification mentioned in

Exhibit P1 notification and are eligible to be appointed to the post of

LD Clerk in the KWA.

3. This Court had considered the contentions in the W.P.(C)

along with connected matters including Writ Appeals challenging

dismissal of other W.P.(C)s, filed by others raising analogous

2026:KER:10345

contentions and had vide common judgment dated 21.11.2025

dismissed the W.P.(C) as well as the W.As. Aggrieved by the

common judgment dated 21.11.2025 to the extent it dismissed the

W.P.(C), this Review Petition is filed.

4. Heard Sri.K.A.Mohamed Haris, Advocate for the review

petitioners and Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, Advocate, Standing Counsel for

the 1st respondent, Sri.Georgy Johny, Advocate, for the 2nd

respondent, Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, learned Government

Pleader for respondents 3 to 7 and Sri.B.Ravisankar, Advocate for

the 8th respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the review petitioners contended

that both the certificate courses i.e., 'Data Entry and Software

Operation' and 'Data Entry and Office Automation' conducted by the

LBS with 120 hours duration are one and the same and that there is

only periodical updation of the nomenclatures of the course. The

word 'Software Operation' had been substituted by the word 'Office

Automation' and apart from that there is no cardinal change

between the courses. It is submitted that the LBS had already

issued Exhibit P12 and Exhibit P14 certificates as provided in

2026:KER:10345

paragraph 17 of the General Conditions issued by the KPSC and

that the updation of nomenclature of the course cannot be taken as

a sole reason or yardstick to reject the legitimate claim and

expectation of the petitioners, especially when they have received

good marks in the written test. The learned counsel submits that

there has been an error in the second part of the eligibility criteria

mentioned in the notification and Special Rules regarding the

acquisition of certificate qualification, which needed to be rectified,

The learned counsel contends that the KPSC was already treating

the courses 'Data Entry and Software Operation' and 'Data Entry

and Office Automation' as identical and equivalent and therefore any

change in their stance is arbitrary, discriminatory and with ulterior

motives. Since the petitioners were included in the ranked list dated

14.07.2023 by the KPSC, after the certificate verification and after

being satisfied that they possess the relevant qualifications as per

the notification, the subsequent exclusion of the petitioners from the

ranked list in the absence of any specific direction by the Apex

Court or this Court, is arbitrary and illegal. Reliance is placed on the

judgment of this Court in Dharun v. Shino M.Gopal [2020 (5) KLT

2026:KER:10345

559], wherein it had been declared that statutory rules such as Rule

1(a) (ii) applies to every selection process even if its applicability is

not declared specifically in the notification. It is thus contended that

the present stand of the KPSC varies with its earlier stand and that it

reeks with arbitrariness.

6. The learned counsel for the review petitioners thus

contends that this Court had erred when importance was given to

the general observation in the Apex Court judgment that

equivalence is not of qualification itself but of institution, from which

the certificate in data entry and office automation is obtained, while

not properly considering the pleadings and the grounds taken in the

W.P.(C). It is submitted that the Apex Court, while arriving at the

said conclusion, had no information before it regarding the very

similar course with slight nomenclature change having very same

syllabus and 120 hours duration that was conducted by the LBS.

Therefore, there was no chance for the Apex Court to verify the

suitability of the course, data entry and software operation that was

conducted by LBS for the relevant post. It is thus contended by the

learned counsel for the review petitioners that an error apparent on

2026:KER:10345

the face of the record had crept into the judgment sought to be

reviewed insofar as the said judgment has been rendered solely on

the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that in

the said process had overlooked the fact that the petitioners were

challenging the eligibility criteria contained in the Special Rules and

the notification and the prayers to declare them as ambiguous. It is

thus prayed that the Review Petition may be allowed.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the KPSC submitted

that the Review Petition does not reveal any error apparent on the

face of the record justifying a review of the judgment, and that the

R.P. has been filed is only a chance litigation. It is submitted that the

Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the question of

candidates with higher qualifications had also considered the

question of equivalency and had in unequivocal terms clarified that

equivalence is not of the qualification itself but of the institution from

which the said certificate in data entry and office automation is

obtained, as approved by the Government. The judgment of the

Supreme Court had unequivocally laid down that the qualification

should be one obtained from LPS/IHRD or from similar or equivalent

2026:KER:10345

institutions approved by the Government. There is an explicit

difference in the course content and the notification issued in 2025

can only have prospective operation. The KPSC insofar as it does

not have the power to decide equivalence, cannot be mulcted with

the duty of comparing the syllabus of the various courses and arrive

at a conclusion of equivalence.

8. The learned counsel for the other respondents reiterate the

above contentions and submit that no error apparent on the face of

the record has been brought out by the review petitioners to justify

the R.P.

9. It is to be noted that the circumstances in which the review

jurisdiction is to be exercised are no longer res integra. Section 114

of the CPC, which is the substantive provision, deals with the scope

of review and states as follows:

"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.

10. The grounds available for filing a review application

2026:KER:10345

against a judgment have been set out in Order XLVII of the CPC in

the following words:

"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, or 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 judgment.]

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in a catena of binding

precedents, has held that unless an error apparent on the face of

the record is revealed, a review cannot be maintained. In Col. Avtar

Singh Sekhon v. Union of India and others reported in [1980

Supp SCC 562], the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that a review

2026:KER:10345

of an earlier order cannot be done unless the court is satisfied that

the material error which is manifest on the face of the order would

result in miscarriage of justice or undermine its soundness. The

observations made are as follows:

"12. A review is not a routine procedure. Here we resolved to hear Shri Kapil at length to remove any feeling that the party has been hurt without being heard. But we cannot review our earlier order unless satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. In Sow Chandra Kante and Another v. Sheikh Habib reported in (1975) 1 SCC 674, this Court observed :

"A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality." (emphasis added)

12. In Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and Others

reported in [(1997) 8 SCC 715], stating that an error that is not self-

evident and the one that has to be detected by the process of

reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of

the record for the Court to exercise the powers of review, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

"7. It is well settled that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.6 Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P.1 reported in (1964) 5 SCR 174 , this Court opined:

'11. What, however, we are now concerned with is

2026:KER:10345

whether the statement in the order of September 1959 that the case did not involve any substantial question of law is an 'error apparent on the face of the record'. The fact that on the earlier occasion the Court held on an identical state of facts that a substantial question of law arose would not per se be conclusive, for the earlier order itself might be erroneous. Similarly, even if the statement was wrong, it would not follow that it was an 'error apparent on the face of the record', for there is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterized as vitiated by 'error apparent'. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error.'

8. Again, in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, while quoting with approval a passage from Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389, this Court once again held that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

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 6 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 this 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" [emphasis added]

13. The error referred to under the Rule must be apparent on

the face of the record and not one which has to be searched out. It

is also settled law that in the exercise of review jurisdiction, the

Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence to arrive at a different

conclusion even if two views are possible in a matter. In Kerala

2026:KER:10345

State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower

Ltd. and others reported in [(2005) 6 SCC 651], the Hon'ble

Supreme Court observed as follows:

"10. ....In a review petition it is not open to this Court to re- appreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion, even if that is possible. Learned counsel for the Board at best sought to impress us that the correspondence exchanged between the parties did not support the conclusion reached by this Court. We are afraid such a submission cannot be permitted to be advanced in a review petition. The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court. If on appreciation of the evidence produced, the court records a finding of fact and reaches a conclusion, that conclusion cannot be assailed in a review petition unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for some reason akin thereto. It has not been contended before us that there is any error apparent on the face of the record. To permit the review petitioner to argue on a question of appreciation of evidence would amount to converting a review petition into an appeal in disguise." (emphasis added)

14. Review Petition cannot be used as a pretext to reiterate

previously raised and rejected arguments. A review cannot be an

attempt to reopen the conclusions reached in a judgment. The

scope of review should not be conflated with appellate jurisdiction,

by which a superior court can rectify errors committed by a

subordinate court. This aspect has been elucidated in Jain Studios

Ltd. v. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. reported in [(2006) 5 SCC

501], wherein it was held thus: