The court emphasized that review petitions cannot reargue resolved issues but must identify clear, self-evident errors in prior judgments.

ORDER

Muralee Krishna, J.

The respondents 1 to 14 in O.P.(KAT)No.343 of 2025 filed this review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (‘CPC’, in short) seeking review of the judgment dated 09.09.2025, passed by this Court in that original petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission (‘KPSC’ in short), the learned counsel for the petitioners in the original petition and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

3. The learned counsel for the review petitioners would submit that the Public Service Commission did not raise the contentions regarding improper parties in the original application. Therefore, the finding regarding the same made in the judgment is incorrect. By vacating the order in M.A.(EKM) No.1111 of 2025, the direction to provisionally report vacancies has been nullified, rendering the said M.A. as well as the O.A. infructuous, since Annexure A2 ranked list expired on 31.07.2025 and the prayer in the said M.A. was to report vacancies prior to the expiry of Annexure A2. If the vacancies are not provisionally reported, even if the O.A. is ultimately allowed, the vacancies will not be filled up from the ranked list in which the review petitioners are included. If the vacancies claimed by the review petitioners are not reported at least provisionally prior to 31.07.2025, as per the judgment in Vimala Kumari and others v. State of Kerala and others [1994 (1) ILR 213], the review petitioners will not be able to raise any claim later on. The learned counsel further submitted that the order of the Tribunal in M.A.(EKM) No.973 of 2025 has been nullified without a direction to extend Ext.P2 interim order, rendering the direction to reconsider meaningless. The learned counsel submitted that if this Court is not inclined to recall the judgment dated 09.09.2025, at least the operation of Ext.P2 order may be extended till the final disposal of M.A (EKM)No.973 of 2025 by the Tribunal.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for KPSC would submit that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment of this Court, and hence there is no necessity to review the same.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners in the original petition would submit that in M.A. (EKM) No.1111 of 2025, the prayer of the review petitioners is to recall the vacancies reported prior to the issuance of Annexure A5 order and report the vacancies of LDC (Kanada and Malayalam knowing) only after the identification of those posts. Such a course of recalling of already reported vacancies cannot be done by the concerned department in view of the Circular issued by the Government.

6. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the available vacancies of LDC (Kannada and Malayalam knowing) were already reported, and they cannot be recalled to report the vacancies as claimed by the review petitioners.

7. To understand the circumstances that entitle the Court to exercise its power of review, it would be appropriate to go through the provisions concerned as well as the law on the point laid down by the judgments of the Apex Court and that of this Court. Section 114 and Order XLVII of CPC are the relevant provisions as far as the review of a judgment or order of a Court is concerned.

8. Section 114 of the CPC reads thus: “114. 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 allow