A review petition requires clear errors of law or fact, not mere dissatisfaction with previous rulings, to warrant reconsideration of a judgment.

ORDER

Dated this the 14th day of July, 2022 SHAJI P.CHALY,J Review petitions are filed by the appellant in Appeal Nos.1506 & 1703 of

2013, seeking to review the judgement of a Division Bench of this Court dated 1st July, 2015. As per the common judgement in the writ appeals filed by one and the same appellant, the judgement of the learned single Judge was affirmed, having found that there is no illegality in the judgement so as to interfere with in an intra court appeal.

2. In fact, the writ petition was filed by the review petitioner seeking a declaration that the review petitioner is entitled to be absorbed in the service of the University of Kerala – the 1st respondent, and get all service benefits including continuity of service holding her termination as bad and illegal being violative of Articles 21 & 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India ; for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to make good the loss of her employment with S.N.College, Kollam by paying compensation for the mental and financial loss sustained by her to the tune of Rs.3.67 Crores and further, for a writ of mandamus commanding the University of Kerala and the Vice Chancellor of the University of Kerala – respondents 1 & 2 to consider Exhibit P11 representation and pass orders absorbing her in the service of the University to any of the existing vacancies or by creating a supernumerary post. However the learned Single Judge declined the relief sought for absorption and compensation.

3. Anyhow, in the appeals filed by the review petitioner, the Division Bench found that the appointment of the review petitioner in the University was set aside as per a judgement of this Court in W.P.(C) No.15330/2005, which was affirmed in writ appeals Nos 403 and 409 filed by the appellant and the University, and therefore, the University cannot be directed to absorb the appellant. So far as the compensation claimed by the review petitioner is concerned, it was held that the University is not responsible for the loss of her employment and unless and until negligence or vitiated mala fides on the part of the University is proved, compensation cannot be ordered. In order to arrive at the said conclusion, the Division Bench has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court inLucknow Development Authority v. M.K.Gupta [ (1994) 1 SCC 243 ] ; Common Cause v. Union of India and others [ (1996) 6 SCC 530 ]; and Shivsagar Tiwari v. Union of India and others [(1996) 6 SCC 588]. Also it was held that the appellant could not make out any case of malicious, deliberate or injurious wrong on the part of the University for loss of employment of the appellant. It was accordingly that the appeals were dismissed.

4. Anyhow, in the judgement of the learned single Judge, the appellant was granted liberty to submit a detailed representation to the University in regard to the caste status of the 3rd respondent, in whose writ petition viz., W.P.(C) No.15330/2005, the employment of the appellant was terminated. Anyhow the review petitions are filed basically contending that the Division Bench has not considered the principles of equity, justice and good conscience in order to arrive at any decision on the reliefs sought for by the appellant. It is also contended that it was on the basis of the notification invited by the University that the appellant has applied and on securing employment in the University her employment in S.N.College, Kollam was resigned by her. Therefore it is submitted that if there was any mistake on the part of the University in conducting the selection and consequent to which the termination had to be made, the University is liable to compensate the appellant .

5. We have heard learned counsel for appellant Sri.P.K.Ibrahim, learned standing counsel for University Sri.Thomas Abraham and perused the pleadings and material on record.

6. It is an admitted fact that though the University has appointed the appellant, it was interfered with in W.P.(C) No.15330/05 filed by the 3rd