Sudheesh Somanathan vs Central University Of Kerala

C.S.Sudha, J.

This review petition has been filed against the judgment dated 26/09/2022 in W.A. No. 854/2022. The review petitioner is the appellant in the writ appeal and the petitioner in the writ petition. The writ appeal was filed by the appellant, challenging the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 12005/2021, whereby the learned single judge dismissed the petition owing to the delay in challenging the appointment of the third respondent thereby upholding Ext.P3 ranklist and Ext. P7 appointment order. The writ appeal has been dismissed holding that as per Ext.R1(a) certificate, the third respondent did have the requisite qualification to be appointed to the post.

According to the review petitioner, there are errors apparent on the face of record in the impugned judgment dated 26/09/2022. The question whether Ext.R1(a) certificate of experience relied on by the third respondent can actually be considered as experience to the post of Security Supervisor or to the post in a Supervising Capacity in the Security Wing was never considered, which is an error apparent on the face of the record.

Heard Adv.V.John Mani, the learned counsel for the appellant and Adv.K.R.Rajkumar, the learned standing counsel for Central University of Kerala.

The ground alleged by the petitioner has been considered in Para 18 of the impugned judgment. Rightly or wrongly, we have decided the issue and rejected the argument of the petitioner. If the petitioner is of the opinion that the finding is wrong, he can take up the matter in appeal because as held in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170, review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and has to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715, the Apex Court held that, 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 that 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. In the exercise of the jurisdiction under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.”

In the light of the above precedents, we do not find any error apparent on the face of record in the impugned judgment calling for a review.

In the result, the review petition is dismissed.

Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.