[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
R.Biji vs State Of Kerala on 9 February, 2026
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
R.P.No.32 of 2026 2026:KER:10853
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 20TH MAGHA, 1947
RP NO. 32 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.07.2025 IN WA NO.1459 OF 2023
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
R.BIJI, AGED 50 YEARS, SPOUSE OF RADHAKRISHNAN M.S
KARTHIKEYAM, WEST GATE, HARIPAD, MANNARASALA P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA, (HSA, HIGH SCHOOL, EDAPPON), NOW DEPLOYED
ON PROTECTION AT SNDP HS MAHADEVIKAD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN -
690514
BY ADVS.
SRI.D.JOTHIKUMAR
SHRI.T.N.JAYADEVAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KODIVEEDU,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688001
2
R.P.No.32 of 2026 2026:KER:10853
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER,
MAVELIKKARA,, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690101
5 THE MANAGER
HIGH SCHOOL, HIGH SCHOOL, EDAPPON P.O., AYARANIKUDI,
MAVELIKARA ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,, PIN - 690558
6 RAJI S.SINDHU,
AGED 49 YEARS
HSA, HIGH SCHOOL, EDAPPON P.O., AYARANIKUDI,
MAVELIKARA ,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690558
SMT.NISHA BOSE, SR.G.P
ADV.K SHAJ - R5
THIS REVIEW PETITION WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 29.01.2026, THE
COURT ON 9.2.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
3
R.P.No.32 of 2026 2026:KER:10853
ORDER
Muralee Krishna, J.
This review petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read
with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the
appellant in WA No.1459 of 2023, seeking review of the judgment
dated 08.07.2025, passed by this Court, whereby that writ appeal
was dismissed confirming the impugned judgment dated
10.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.(C)No.19703 of 2019.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned counsel for the 5th respondent and the learned Senior
Government Pleader.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in the
judgment dated 08.07.2025 passed by this Court, the binding
ratio in Manager, VKNM Vocational Higher Secondary School
v. State of Kerala [(2016) 4 SCC 216] was overlooked, which
explicitly holds that short term hands, having less than one
academic year appointment do not acquire the statutory status of
R.P.No.32 of 2026 2026:KER:10853
a Relieved Teacher. The service book of the 6th respondent was
opened in the year 2007, and there was no entry regarding any
history of service for the prior period entered therein. However,
without amending the service book, the prior service details were
pasted in the service book, which ought not have been accepted
by this Court while passing the judgment. Since the prior
appointment is not available to the 6th respondent, the seniority
by age has to be given to the petitioner who is elder in age than
the 6th respondent. Rule 37(2) is a consequence of Rule 51A of
Chapter XIVA of Kerala Education Rules ('KER' in short), and
hence, they cannot legally exist in isolation. Since the judgment
was passed without considering these aspects, there is error
apparent on the face of the record, and hence the judgment may
be recalled, and the appeal may be allowed.
4. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent Manager,
would submit that the arguments now advanced by the petitioner
were not made at the time of hearing the writ petition or the writ
appeal. Hence, the petitioner cannot take those contentions in a
R.P.No.32 of 2026 2026:KER:10853
review petition. The learned counsel further submitted that the
appointment of the 6th respondent was approved prior to the
petitioner, and these facts were correctly appreciated in the
judgment, and there is no error apparent on the face of the record
in the judgment.
5. The learned Senior Government Pleader would point
out that the contentions regarding Rules 37 and 51A of Chapter
XIVA of KER were considered by this Court in paragraph 17 of the
judgment. Similarly, the contentions of the petitioner regarding
the previous service of the 6th respondent were also taken note
of by this Court. In fact, the petitioner is now raising a contention
that the reasoning given by this Court in the judgment is incorrect,
which is nothing but an appeal in disguise.
6. 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
R.P.No.32 of 2026 2026:KER:10853
provisions as far as the review of a judgment or order of a Court
is concerned.
7. 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."
8. Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC reads thus:
"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
R.P.No.32 of 2026 2026:KER:10853
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
judgment."
9. 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 petitioner;
(i) discovery of a new and important matter or evidence, or
R.P.No.32 of 2026 2026:KER:10853
(ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or
(iii) any other sufficient reason.
10. 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.
11. 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
allowed to be "an appeal in disguise"."
(Underline supplied)
12. In N.Anantha Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria [(2013) 15
R.P.No.32 of 2026 2026:KER:10853
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.
13. 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.
14. In Shanti 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".
15. Again, in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v K.L. Rathi Steels
Ltd [2024 SCC Online SC 1090], the Apex Court considered the
R.P.No.32 of 2026 2026:KER:10853
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."
16. 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.
17. We have appreciated the rival submissions made at the
Bar in the light of the principles laid down in the aforementioned
R.P.No.32 of 2026 2026:KER:10853
judgments regarding review jurisdiction. From the judgment
dated 08.07.2025, it is clear that this Court considered the
contentions raised by the parties in detail by referring to the
materials placed on record. From the averments in the review
petition, we notice that the petitioner is now trying to reagitate
the issue which was already decided by this Court on merits in the
judgment dated 08.07.2025 in the writ appeal. As rightly pointed
out by the learned Senior Government Pleader, the contention of
the petitioner-appellant that the previous service of the 6 th
respondent cannot be considered for fixing the seniority, and also
the applicability of the judgment in Manager, VKNM Vocational
Higher Secondary School [(2016) 4 SCC 216] were
considered by this Court in the impugned judgment. As far as the
argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per
Rules 22 and 24 of Chapter XIVA of KER regarding amendment to
be effected for incorporating the details of prior service in the
service book is concerned, we notice that as per the statement in
the counter affidavit dated 19.09.2022 filed by the 4th respondent
R.P.No.32 of 2026 2026:KER:10853
in the writ petition, the entry in the service book was checked by
the Superintendent of the Audit Team of DDE, Alappuzha, during
the course of audit of accounts on 13.04.1999 and therefore there
is no doubt about the veracity of the register. As per Rule 22 of
Chapter XIVA of the KER, the entry in the history of service shall
be complete record of the previous service of the Teacher till the
opening of the service book for him. As per Rule 24, one copy of
the History of the Service form shall be deemed to be an Annexure
to the teacher's service Book and shall be securely attached to the
service Book. There is no procedure to amend the service Book
pointed out by the petitioner under the provisions of KER.
Therefore, the aforesaid contention of the petitioner relying on
Rules 22 and 24 of Chapter XIVA of KER cannot be accepted. In
such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that, only
for the reason that the aforesaid contention raised by the
petitioner-appellant was not considered in the appeal judgment,
there is no necessity to review the said judgment.
18. Having considered the pleadings and materials on
R.P.No.32 of 2026 2026:KER:10853
record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no sufficient
reason to hold that the petitioner-appellant has made out any
ground provided under Order XLVII Rule 1 and Section 114 of the
CPC to review the judgment dated 08.07.2025 passed by this
Court in the writ appeal. The attempt of the review petitioner
appears as to invoke the review jurisdiction as an appeal in
disguise. Therefore, the review petition is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the review petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
