[Cites 14, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Anto Paul .V vs State Of Kerala on 9 January, 2026

RP NO.1434/2025                 1



                                              2026:KER:1220
          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 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 19TH POUSHA, 1947

                     RP NO.1434 OF 2025
        ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.10.2025 IN WA
            NO.1552/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANTS:

    1     ANTO PAUL .V.
          AGED 57 YEARS
          OPERATOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY SECTION,
          WADAKKANCHERRY, PIN - 680582

    2     A.R.VINCENT
          AGED 58 YEARS
          OPERATOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY SECTION,
          WADAKKANCHERRY, PIN - 680582

    3     V.P.DILEEP
          AGED 59 YEARS
          OPERATOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY SECTION,
          WADAKKANCHERRY, PIN - 680582

    4     C.V.JOY
          AGED 53 YEARS
          OPERATOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY SECTION,
          WADAKKANCHERRY, PIN - 680582

    5     JOSE V.D.(DIED)
          AGED 58 YEARS
          OPERATOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY SECTION,
          WADAKKANCHERRY, PIN - 680582

    6     KURIYAN M.J.
          AGED 57 YEARS
          OPERATOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY SECTION,
          WADAKKANCHERRY, PIN - 680582
 RP NO.1434/2025                  2



                                                2026:KER:1220
    7    K.P.SAILESH
         AGED 52 YEARS
         OPERATOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY SECTION,
         WADAKKANCHERRY, PIN - 680582

         BY ADV SRI.LUIZ GODWIN D COUTH


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

    1    STATE OF KERALA
         REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
         WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT,
         GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

    2    THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
         KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695002

    3    THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
         WATER AUTHORITY DIVISION, THRISSUR, PIN - 680005

    4    THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
         WATER AUTHORITY SUB DIVISION,
         WADAKKANCHERRY, PIN - 680582

         BY ADV.
         SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER



     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.12.2026,   THE   COURT   ON   09.01.2026   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 RP NO.1434/2025                          3



                                                              2026:KER:1220



                                ORDER

Dated this the 09th day of January, 2025

Syam Kumar V.M., J.

This Review Petition is filed seeking to review the judgment

dated 08.10.2025 in W.A.No.1552 of 2021. Review Petitioners were

the appellants in the said Writ Appeal.

2. The Writ Appeal was filed challenging the judgment dated

12.10.2021 of the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C) No.9482

of 2015 filed by the Review Petitioners. In the said W.P.(C), the

Review Petitioners had sought to quash Ext.P12 order declining their

regularisation in the Kerala Water Authority (KWA).

3. In the judgment sought to be reviewed, this Court had

affirmed the dismissal of the W.P.(C), and held that in the light of the

specific provisions under Rule 9 (a) (i) of Part II of KS & SSR, 1958,

appointees like the Review Petitioners cannot claim regularisation or

even seek continuance beyond the period of 179 days. This Review

Petition is filed, contending that the dismissal of the Writ Appeal is

erroneous and the Review Petitioners are entitled to regularisation in

2026:KER:1220

the light of settled precedents.

4. Heard Sri.Luiz Godwin D Couth, Advocate for the Review

Petitioners, Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, Government Pleader for the

1st respondent and Sri.Georgie Johny, Advocate, Standing Counsel

for respondents 2 to 4.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

judgment in the Writ Appeal is fit to be reviewed since it fails to take

note that the Review Petitioners had been continuing in the Kerala

Water Authority in the category of operators for the last 25 years

without any break. They are hence entitled to regularisation in the

service under the Kerala Water Authority. Placing reliance on the

dictum laid down in Jacob v. Kerala Water Authority [1990 (2) KLT

673 (SC)], it is contended that those employees who are working

without any break under the Kerala Water Authority are entitled to

regularisation in view of the mandates in Rule 9 (a) (i) of the KS &

SSR 1958, and Section 8, 19 (3) and 69 of the Kerala Water Supply

and Sewerage Act, 1986. Reliance is also placed on the dictum laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of

Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others [AIR 2006 SC 1806]

and it is submitted that by virtue of long and continued service in

2026:KER:1220

Kerala Water Authority, the Review Petitioners acquired a right for

regularisation. They cannot at this point of time aspire for any other

job and is entitled to regularisation on humanitarian grounds also. It

is further submitted that in the course of the arguments in the Writ

Appeal, the Review Petitioners could not point out the above said

landmark decisions in the matter of regularisation of similar

employees, and it is prayed that the Review Petition may be allowed.

6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that

the Review Petition is not maintainable as the same does not

disclose any error apparent on the face of the record. Not even a

single error in the judgment had been pointed out, and there is not

even a pleading that an error apparent on the face of the record

exists. None of the mandates for exercising review jurisdiction are

thus met or satisfied. The Review Petitioners were engaged by

contractors for pumping duty, and the KWA had no employer-

employee relationship with the petitioners. The wage for pumping

duty is paid to the contractors who supply labourers. The Review

Petitioners are not even daily wage casual labourers or HR

labourers. Reliance is placed on the dictum laid down in Col. Avtar

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

2026:KER:1220

Supp SCC 562]; Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and

Others [(1997) 8 SCC 715]; Kerala State Electricity Board v.

Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd. and others reported

in [(2005) 6 SCC 651]; Jain Studios Ltd. v. Shin Satellite Public

Co. Ltd. reported in [(2006) 5 SCC 501]; S.Bagirathi Ammal v.

Palani Roman Catholic Mission [(2009) 10 SCC 464]; Kamlesh

Verma v. Mayawati and others reported in [(2013) 8 SCC 320] and

Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) Through LRs and others v. Vinod Kumar

Rawat and others [(2020) SCC Online SC 896] to buttress the

contention that the Review Petition is not maintainable for the total

absence of error apparent on the face of the record.

7. We have considered the contention put forth by both sides

and have perused the precedents relied on. It is trite that to seek

review, it has to be demonstrated that the order suffers from an error

contemplated under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, which is apparent on

the face of the record and not an error which is to be fished out and

searched. Further a decision or order cannot be reviewed merely

because it is erroneous. In Kamlesh Verma (supra), the principles

for exercising review jurisdiction have been succinctly summarised

as below:

2026:KER:1220 "20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:

20.1. When the review will be maintainable:

(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;

(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;

(iii) Any other sufficient reason.

The words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chajju Ram vs. Neki (AIR 1922 PC 112), and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors. (AIR 1954 SC 526) to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors reported in (2013) 8 SCC 337, 20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:

(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.

(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.

(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.

(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.

(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error.

(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.

(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.

(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.