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 RP NO.60/2026 4 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 RP NO.60/2026 5 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 RP NO.60/2026 6 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 RP NO.60/2026 7 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 RP NO.60/2026 8 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 RP NO.60/2026 9 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 RP NO.60/2026 10 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 RP NO.60/2026 11 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 RP NO.60/2026 12 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:
RP NO.60/2026 13
2026:KER:10345 "11. So far as the grievance of the applicant on merits is concerned, the learned counsel for the opponent is right in submitting that virtually the applicant seeks the same relief which had been sought at the time of arguing the main matter and had been negatived. Once such a prayer had been refused, no review petition would lie which would convert rehearing of the original matter. It is settled law that the power of review cannot be confused with appellate power which enables a superior court to correct all errors committed by a subordinate court. It is not rehearing of an original matter. A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. The power of review can be exercised with extreme care, caution and circumspection and only in exceptional cases.
12. When a prayer to appoint an arbitrator by the applicant herein had been made at the time when the arbitration petition was heard and was rejected, the same relief cannot be sought by an indirect method by filing a review petition. Such petition, in my opinion, is in the nature of 'second innings' which is impermissible and unwarranted and cannot be granted."
(emphasis added)
15. In Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and others reported in [(2013) 8 SCC 320], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after a detailed discussion on related precedents, observed that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1, CPC. If the point sought to be raised in the review application has already been dealt with and answered, parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment only because an alternative view is possible. The principles for exercising review jurisdiction were succinctly summarised in the said case as below:
"20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:RP NO.60/2026 14
2026:KER:10345 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 v. Neki (AIR 1922 PC 112), and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. 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.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived."
16. In Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) Through LRs and Others v. Vinod Kumar Rawat and Others reported in [(2020) SCC Online RP NO.60/2026 15 2026:KER:10345 SC 896], citing previous decisions and expounding on the scope and ambit of Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that Section 114 CPC does not lay any conditions precedent in exercising the power of review; nor does the Section prohibit the Court from exercising its power to review a decision. However, an order can be reviewed by the Court only on the grounds prescribed in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. The said power cannot be exercised as an inherent power and nor can appellate power be exercised in the guise of exercising the power of review.
17. In our considered opinion, none of the grounds available for successfully seeking review as recognised by Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC are made out in the present case. It is noted that the contention put forth by the review petitioners that the course titled Data Entry and Software Operation is the same as the Data Entry and Office Automation and that the distinction lies only in the nomenclature of the course had been considered in detail in the judgment sought to be reviewed. After taking note of the GO (Rt) No.372/2025/HEDN dated 22.03.2025 issued by the Government of RP NO.60/2026 16 2026:KER:10345 Kerala wherein it was clarified that the data entry and software operation co-existence is equivalent to the data entry and office automation mentioned in the KPSC notification, it was concluded that there is explicit difference in course content, and the notification issued in 2025 could only have prospective operation. While rendering the judgment in review, it is noted that this Court had also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which had unequivocally insisted on strict compliance with the qualifications clause of the relevant notification. It had also been concluded in the said judgment that the KPSC does not have the power to decide on equivalence and hence the contention that the prescription of an 'equivalent institution' in the notification has to be read as 'equivalent course/degree' cannot be countenanced. The contention put forth by the learned counsel for the review petitioner that this Court had erred in giving much importance to the general observation contained in paragraph 17 of the judgment of the Supreme Court and ought to have noted that the Supreme Court had no chance for verifying the suitability of the course cannot be sustained for the reason that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had RP NO.60/2026 17 2026:KER:10345 unequivocally held that there should be strict compliance with the qualifications clause of the relevant notification. In the light of the said specific direction by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the contention that an exercise of comparing the different qualifications ought to have been undertaken of various certificates to assess their equivalence cannot be sustained.
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.Bagirathi Ammal v. Palani Roman Catholic Mission [(2009) 10 SCC 464] has held 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 record and not an error which is to be fished out and searched. A decision or order cannot be reviewed merely because it is erroneous. On perusal of the records and in the light of the judgments passed in the case of S.Bagirathi Ammal (supra), no error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference in the impugned judgment has been pointed out or revealed.
In view of the above settled position of law, the Review Petition, insofar as it does not reveal any error apparent on the face RP NO.60/2026 18 2026:KER:10345 of the record, and is only a reiteration of the earlier contentions in the W.P.(C), which have been duly considered and turned down, does not hold merit. The Review Petition is fit to be dismissed, and it is hereby ordered so.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI JUDGE Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE csl RP NO.60/2026 19 2026:KER:10345 APPENDIX OF RP NO.60/2026 PETITIONERS ANNEXURES Annexure 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.11.2025 IN W.P.(C) NO.12554/2025 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 07.08.2025 IN W.A. NO.543/2025 Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 20.08.2025 IN W.A. NO.543/2025 Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION FOR CATEGORY NO.254 OF 2023 (FOR THE POST OF ELECTRICIAN IN HARBOUR ENGINEERING) TAKEN FROM THE WEBSITE