Kerala High Court
Angel Mary J. N vs State Of Kerala on 2 June, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
2025:KER:38467
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1947
R.P. NO. 1223 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.10.2024 IN OP(KAT) NO.349
OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
ANGEL MARY J. N.
AGED 30 YEARS
W/O ALEX JOSEPH, NURSING OFFICER, GOVERNMENT
MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, THIRUVANTHAPURAM,
RESIDING AT AGRIMA 2, VADAKKUMBHAGAM,
ERAVIPURAM,P.O KOLLAM, PIN - 691011.
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ
SMT.ANN MARIA JOHNSON
SRI.SANJAY JOHNSON
SHRI.JOHN GOMEZ
SHRI.ARUN JOHNY
SMT.DEEBU R.
SHRI.ABIN JACOB MATHEW
SHRI.SANJITH JOHNSON
SHRI.SARAN A.
2025:KER:38467
2
R.P.No.1223 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.349 of 2024 &
R.P.No.1169 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.367 of 2024
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT,HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN
- 682031.
2 THE DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION (DME), MEDICAL
COLLEGE THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695011.
3 THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITYS SECRETARY, KPSC OFFICE,
PATTOM PALACE, THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033.
SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SR.GOVT.PLEADER
SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 02.06.2025, ALONG WITH RP.1169/2024, THE
COURT ON 02.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:38467
3
R.P.No.1223 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.349 of 2024 &
R.P.No.1169 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.367 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1947
RP NO. 1169 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.10.2024 IN OP(KAT) NO.367
OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
KRIPA K K
AGED 42 YEARS
W/O BENOY K S ,WORKING AS NURSING OFFICER,
HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT
MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE, THRISSUR, RESIDING AT
KANGAPARAMBIL HOUSE MINALOOR P.O., THRISSUR,
PIN - 680581.
BY ADV SHRI.P.RAVEENDRAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THRIUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL HEALTH EDUCATION(DME)
MEDICAL COLLEGE, THRIUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695011.
2025:KER:38467
4
R.P.No.1223 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.349 of 2024 &
R.P.No.1169 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.367 of 2024
3 THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KPSC OFFICE,
PATTOM PALACE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695033.
4 RESHMI R NAIR
AGED 36 YEARS
D/O RAVEENDRAN NAIR N. K. WORKING AS NURSING
OFFICER,HEALTH &FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
INSTITUTE OF CHEST DISEASES, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL
COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE-673008, RESIDING AT
SREEKRIPA, ADIYOTTIL, MAYANAD P O., KOZHIKODE.
5 GEETHU K
AGED 37 YEARS
W/O SIVAKUMAR G., WORKING AS NURSING OFFICER,
HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SREE
AVITTOM THIRUNAL HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695011, RESIDING AT MANOJ BHAVAN,
NEDUVILAKKARA, MAYYANAD P O., KOLLAM, PIN -
691304.
6 MINU MARY JOHN
AGED 35 YEARS
W/O ISSAC GEORGE, WORKING AS NURSING OFFICER,
HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT., GOVERNMENT
TDMCH VANDANAM, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688005, RESIDING
AT KULATHINGAL HOUSE, NELLIMOODU, KULATHUPUZHA
P O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691310.
7 NINU V
AGED 32 YEARS
W/O BIMAL K. L.,WORKING AS NURSING OFFICER,
HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, INSTITUTE
OF MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH
HOSPITAL,GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE,KOZHIKODE-
673008, RESIDING AT ANAMIKA KSHB COLONY,
KOZHIKODE.
8 SAMEERA T A
AGED 33 YEARS
W/O NAWAF M V., WORKING AS NURSING OFFICER,
HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
2025:KER:38467
5
R.P.No.1223 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.349 of 2024 &
R.P.No.1169 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.367 of 2024
MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE, KUTHIRAVATTOM P.Ο.,
KOZHIKODE-673016, RESIDING AT MELVEETIL HOUSE,
CHENNAMANGALLUR P O., MUKKOM VIA, MALAPPURAM.
SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SR.GOVT.PLEADER
SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 30.05.2025, ALONG WITH RP.1223/2024, THE
COURT ON 02.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:38467
6
R.P.No.1223 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.349 of 2024 &
R.P.No.1169 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.367 of 2024
ANIL K. NARENDRAN & P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------------------
R.P.No.1223 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.349 of 2024
and
R.P.No.1169 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.367 of 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2025
ORDER
P.G. Ajithkumar, J.
The petitioners in the respective original petitions have filed these applications for review filed under Section 114 read with Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
2. The original petitions involved here and also a connected matter were disposed of as per the common judgment dated 04.10.2024 owing to the fact that questions involved were the same. The petitioners would contend that errors were crept in the said common judgment and therefore the same is liable to be reviewed and the original petitions are decided in accordance with law. The 3rd respondent filed a counter-affidavit controverting the contentions in the applications for review.
2025:KER:38467 7 R.P.No.1223 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.349 of 2024 & R.P.No.1169 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.367 of 2024
3. Heard the respective counsel for the petitioners, the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent.
4. The essential contentions raised in support of the plea for review are that the feeder categories eligible for applying for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Nursing as per Annexure A1 notification were from two different departments, namely, Department of Medical Education and Department of Health Services and the law applicable was the one laid down in Sreejith K.K. v. Vinod [2019 (1) KHC 261]. But this court departed from the said principle and that occasioned in holding in the common judgement that those whose probation was declared could alone apply.
5. It was further contended that the question concerning qualification of the applicants to the post of Assistant Professor in Nursing should not have been decided in the context of Rule 2(13) of Part I of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 (KS&SSR), but only in the 2025:KER:38467 8 R.P.No.1223 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.349 of 2024 & R.P.No.1169 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.367 of 2024 light of the provisions of Rule 5, whereas the court held otherwise. It has also been contended that the interpretation of Rule 2(13) as adopted in the present judgment is incorrect inasmuch as a contextual interpretation was warranted owing to the prelude in the Rule that "unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,- ......". A more fundamental contention was raised that the PSC went wrong in notifying the vacancies for the recruitment, "by transfer". It should have been a direct recruitment since the appointment intended was against substantive vacancy.
6. The learned Standing Counsel for the PSC would submit that the judgment was rendered after considering all the contentions in detail and therefore a review is not called for. In that regard the decision of the Apex Court in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer [(2024) 2 SCC 362] was placed reliance on. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that a similar question was considered by this Court in O.P.(KAT) No.293 of 2024. Although the Department was different, application of Rule 2(13) of Part I of KS&SSR was 2025:KER:38467 9 R.P.No.1223 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.349 of 2024 & R.P.No.1169 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.367 of 2024 the question for consideration. There the notification of the PSC for recruitment by transfer and fixing the qualification for the same have been upheld. It is pointed out that a review application filed in that matter was turned down as well. Accordingly, the learned Standing Counsel would submit that these applications are liable only to be dismissed. The Senior Government Pleader supported the stand taken by the learned Standing Counsel.
7. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi [(1997) 8 SCC 715], the Apex Court made very pivotal observations:-
"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 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."
2025:KER:38467 10 R.P.No.1223 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.349 of 2024 & R.P.No.1169 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.367 of 2024
8. In Shanti Conductors Private Limited v. Assam State Electricity Board [(2020) 2 SCC 677], a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court following Parsion Devi [(1997) 8 SCC 715] dismissed the review applications holding that the scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.
9. Later, in Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) Through Legal Representatives v. Vinod Kumar Rawat [(2021) 13 SCC 1], the Apex Court restated the law with regard to the scope of review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC.
10. The law is clear that a power to review cannot be exercised as an appellate power and has to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.
2025:KER:38467 11 R.P.No.1223 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.349 of 2024 & R.P.No.1169 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.367 of 2024
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner in R.P.No. 1169 of 2024 urged that if there is an error in the judgment, which is concerning a substantive point of law, the court is obliged to exercise its power of review. In that regard, the learned counsel placed reliance on Deva Metal Powders Pvt.Ltd. v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. [(2008) 2 SCC 439]. After holding so in the said decision, it was further held that an error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, a wrong view or decision taken in the judgment cannot be a reason for review inasmuch as a review cannot be an appeal in disguise. Keeping in view the aforementioned legal position, we proceed to examine the contentions raised by the petitioners.
12. After considering the law laid down by this Court in Sreejith K.K. [2019 (1) KHC 261] and Riju K. v. The Controller, Legal Metrology [judgment dated 12.08.2014 in O.P.(KAT) No.255 of 2014] we held that the qualification fixed 2025:KER:38467 12 R.P.No.1223 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.349 of 2024 & R.P.No.1169 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.367 of 2024 by the PSC in Annexure A1 notification could not be said to be incorrect. The provisions of Rule 2(13) of Part I of KS&SSR were found to be holding the field. When we considered the contentions of the parties in detail and for the reasons given therein arrived at the aforementioned findings, it is not a case falling for review as held in the aforementioned decisions.
13. Rule 2(13) of Part I of KS&SSR defines the appointment by transfer. The contention of the petitioners that the qualifications should have been fixed as in the case of a direct recruitment reckoning the provisions of Rule 5 of Part I of KS&SSR cannot be accepted. Whether or not the recruitment is against a substantive vacancy when it is provided in the Special Rules for by-transfer appointment, the recruitment agency cannot be found fault with for making recruitment by transfer. Rule 5 regulates only the proportion and does not create any prohibition to recruitment by transfer vis-a-vis the substantive vacancies. We notice that the view taken in O.P.(KAT) No.293 of 2024, to which we are in agreement with, fails the contention of 2025:KER:38467 13 R.P.No.1223 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.349 of 2024 & R.P.No.1169 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.367 of 2024 the petitioners that Rule 2(13) of Part I of the KS&SSR has no application.
14. The petitioners set forth a few other contentions, which are anew. There is no scope for such new contentions in an application for review. We are therefore of the view that these applications lack merits.
Accordingly, these applications for review are dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE dkr 2025:KER:38467 14 R.P.No.1223 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.349 of 2024 & R.P.No.1169 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.367 of 2024 APPENDIX OF RP 1169/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-A A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN O.P.(KAT)NO.367 OF 2024 DATED 04.10.2024.
2025:KER:38467 15 R.P.No.1223 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.349 of 2024 & R.P.No.1169 of 2024 in O.P.(KAT) No.367 of 2024 APPENDIX OF RP 1223/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(KAT) NO. 349 OF 2024 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, DATED 04-10-2024