KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. JAYALEKSHMI P.B (Review Petition)

RP.No.1093 OF 2017 IN OP(KAT). 279/2017 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.** **MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1942** ## **RP.No.1093 OF 2017 IN OP(KAT). 279/2017** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP(KAT) 279/2017(Z) DATED 16-082017 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS** - **1 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,OFFICE OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA 695004.** - **2 THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,DISTRICT OFFICE, KOLLAM,KERALA 691001** - **BY ADV. SHRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS** **JAYALEKSHMI P.B** - **W/O.ABHILASH J, AGED 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT ASHTAMI, THANOORKONAM, T.C.34/407, PRAC - 30,NETTAYAM P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA 695013.** - **2 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION,VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,KERALA, 695035.** - **3 THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR(GENERAL)NEAR COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM,KERALA- 691013.** - **4 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA 695014** RP.No.1093 OF 2017 IN OP(KAT). 279/2017 2 - **5 THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA,PIN 695010** - **6 THE CONTROLLER OF STATIONERY OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER OF STATIONERY,STATIONERY DEPARTMENT , PMG JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695033** - **7 DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOLLAM, COLLECTORATE,KOLLAM, KERALA, PIN 691013.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.HARISH KUMAR, GP** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** RP.No.1093 OF 2017 IN OP(KAT). 279/2017 3 ## **ORDER** **Dated this the 23rd day of November 2020** ## **Shircy V. J** The Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) has filed this Review Petition. The candidates included in the rank list for appointment as Binder Gr II in Kollam District had filed O.A. (Ekm) 1579/2016 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT), seeking directions to the respondents in the O.A to advise candidates against the vacancy reported to the PSC. Noticing that a head quarters vacancy in the post reported to PSC was pending before it without advice and observing that there was no other rank list in force, KAT directed the PSC to advise a candidate against that vacancy from the rank list of Kollam district. 2. The Tribunal found that there was no rank list in force for appointment to the post of Binder Gr II as on the date of expiry of the rank list for the said posts in Kollam District. It was found that a head quarters vacancy which was already reported to the PSC was pending without advice. Such a direction was RP.No.1093 OF 2017 IN OP(KAT). 279/2017 4 issued after taking note of the objection of the PSC, that the turn for advice against that vacancy was for Alapuzha District and the turn of Kollam district was already over, in tune with the Government Order dated 27.05.1971. By the judgment sought to be reviewed, this court affirmed the order passed by the KAT. 3. In this Review Petition the contention of the PSC is that the rank list for the very same post in Alapuzha District was publishd on 28.04.2017 and since Head Quarters vacancy alone was available, the Commission advised the first rankholder against that vacancy from the rank list of Alapuzha District. It is stated that in order to comply with the judgment in the O.P.(KAT) the advice issued to that candidate will have to be cancelled and that Rule 3(c) of KS&SSR does not permit such a cancellation. 4. The respondent candidate has filed counter affidavit explaining the entire proceedings since the filing of the O.A, the O.P.(KAT), the Contempt petition filed before the KAT, the filing of this Review Petition, its dismissal, restoration, delay involved in taking steps, etc. 5. We have heard Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, the learned Counsel for the Public Service Commission and Sri. Pirappancode Sudheer the learned Counsel for the respondent. RP.No.1093 OF 2017 IN OP(KAT). 279/2017 5 6. It is clear from the records that the KAT as well as this court had rendered the order/judgment only after taking note of the contention of the PSC in its reply statement filed in the O.A. before the KAT that the Head Quarters vacancy was alloted to Alapuzha District. Moreover, it is also seen that an interim order was passed by the KAT on 08.12.2016 directing advice against that vacancy from the ranked list of Kollam District, provisionally. In para 7 of the judgment this court observed as follows: _7. On a consideration of the facts and the rival submissions made at the Bar, it is noted that the fact that the Head Quarters vacancy of Binder Grade II was reported to the Public Service Commission by the Rural Development Department on 24.11.2016 is not disputed. The only question to be adjudicated upon is whether the Public Service Commission could be directed to advice candidates from Annexure A1 ranked list which is in existence as on the date of reporting of the above vacancies. It is admitted on both sides that no other ranked list exists as on the date in the category of Binder Grade II from which advice or appointment could be effected against the Head Quarters vacancy that has been reported to the Commission on 24.11.2016._ 7. The KAT disposed of the O.A. On 21.03.2017 as per Ext P4 order in the O.P(KAT). This court affirmed the order in O.P.(KAT) as per judgment dated 16.08.2017. The Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) was the 1[st] respondent in the O.A and the 1[st] petitioner in the O.P.(KAT). The rank list for the post in Alapuzha District was published only on 28.04.2017. Therefore, RP.No.1093 OF 2017 IN OP(KAT). 279/2017 6 advice of a candidate from that list could have been made by the PSC only after the KAT passed the order. It cannot be said that the PSC which was the 1[st] respondent in the O.A was not aware of the proceedings for publication of the rank list in Alapuzha District, when the O.A. Was pending before the KAT. We do not find any justifiable reason for the 1[st] petitioner herein for not raising any contention before this court either as to the proceedings leading to the publication of the rank list or as to the advice made if the advice was made before the disposal of the O.P.(KAT). The date of advice is not seen stated in the Review Petition. 8. Here, this Review Petition appears to have been filed after making advice in disregard of the order of the KAT as well as the judgment of this court. The scope of review jurisdiction and the law on the subject has been crystallised in several decisions. ## 9. In _**Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and**_ ## _**others [(1997) 8 SCC 715],**_ it was held as under : ''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 RP.No.1093 OF 2017 IN OP(KAT). 279/2017 7 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”. ## 10. In _**N.Anantha Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria and others**_ ## _**[(2013) 15 SCC 534]**_ it was observed as follows: “The review jurisdiction is extremely limited and unless there is mistake apparent on the face of the record the order/judgment does not call for review. The mistake apparent on 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.” ## 11. In **Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Others [ (2013)** ## **8 SCC 320],** the following observation was made in paragraph 17: “ In a review petition, it is not open to the Court to reappreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion, even if that is possible. Conclusion arrived at on appreciation of evidence cannot be assailed in a review petition unless it is shown that there is an error RP.No.1093 OF 2017 IN OP(KAT). 279/2017 8 apparent on the face of the record or for some reason akin thereto.” Applying the settled principles of review jurisdiction referred in the above decisions with the facts of the case, we find no glaring mistake or grave error on the face of the record leading to miscarriage of justice to exercise the review jurisdiction, and we are convinced that a review does not lie. In the said circumstances, we are of the view that there are no circumstances which justify a review of the judgment of this court. Sd/- **P.V.ASHA, JUDGE** Sd/- **SHIRCY V., JUDGE** AS