The review jurisdiction is not meant for rearguing the merits of the case but is limited to instances where an error is apparent on the face of the record.

ORDER :

Muralee Krishna, J.

The petitioners in these review petitions are third parties to W.A.No.1527 of 2021, who have filed the respective review petitions under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’ for short), seeking review of the judgment dated 03.02.2023 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in that writ appeal.

2. W.A.No.1527 of 2021 was filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.16456 of 2021, challenging the judgment dated 06.10.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant/writ petitioner was one of the aspirants for the post of Assistant Professor in various departments of the University of Calicut, notified by Ext.P1 notification dated 31.12.2019 issued by the University. Out of the total notified vacancies of 63, two vacancies were in the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication. In Ext.P4 ranked list, the appellant/writ petitioner was placed as rank No.2. Even though there were two vacancies, the candidate who secured rank No.1 alone was appointed, stating the reason that the second vacancy is one to be earmarked for candidates belonging to special reservation category ‘persons with disabilities’ in terms of Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (‘the Act’, for short). Contending that going by the respective dates of occurrence of vacancies in the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication, roster points of 31 and 54 are the slots to be applied for filling up the vacancies that arose in the department, of which the vacancy corresponding to roster point 31 is a slot due to open competition candidates and the vacancy corresponding to roster point 54 is a slot due to candidates belonging to Ezhavas, Thiyyas, and Billavas Communities (ETB Communities) and insofar as there were 63 vacancies, the first rank holder should have been appointed against the vacancy corresponding to roster point 31 and appellant/writ petitioner being the 2^nd rank holder and also a candidate belonging to the category ETB communities should have been appointed against the vacancy corresponding to roster point 54, the appellant/writ petitioner filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, taking the view that since the vacancy corresponding to roster point 54 has been filled up by appointing a candidate belonging to ETB communities, though not in the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication, there is no illegality in the appointments effected. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant/writ petitioner filed W.A. No.1527 of 2021. By relying on the judgments of the Apex Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217], Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission [(2007) 8 SCC 785], Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of UP [(1995) 5 SCC 173 ] and R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab [(1995) 2 SCC 745] the Division Bench set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and disposed of the writ appeal with the following directions:

“i. The University is directed to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Professor in the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication in the vacancy corresponding to roster point 54 forthwith.

ii. The University is also directed to rework the rotation chart in respect of the appointments already made pursuant to Ext.P1 notification notionally, following the procedure prescribed by the Apex Court in Indra Sawhney, Anil Kumar Gupta and Rajesh Kumar Daria and retain persons who are a