IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ
ROHINIKUTTY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed for review of an earlier judgment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. review power under cpc limited to specific grounds. (Para 5) |
ORDER
Muralee Krishna, J.
This review petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 by the respondent in O.P.(KAT)No.13 of 2018, seeking review of the judgment dated 14.11.2025, passed by this Court whereby that original petition was allowed by setting aside the impugned Ext.P3 order dated 10.04.2017 passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1984 of 2015 and consequently, the original application stands dismissed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this Court allowed the original petition on finding that the review petitioner- respondent is not appointed in a sanctioned post. She is not a contract employee, as observed in Ext.P3 impugned order, and she is a casual sweeper. If a post of part-time sweeper was created by the Government in the year 2005, the review petitioner-respondent would not have been prejudiced.
4. On the other hand, the learned Seni
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.