The court ruled that review petitions do not permit a re-examination of previously decided issues unless there is an error apparent on record, reinforcing the limited scope of review under civil procedure.

COMMON ORDER

Muralee Krishna, J.

R.P.No.1494 of 2025 is filed by respondents 1, 2 and 5 in W.A.No.382 of 2025, R.P.No.1506 of 2025 is filed by respondents 1 to 3 in W.A.No.173 of 2025 and R.P.No.1545 of 2025 is filed by respondents 1 to 3 in W.A.No.209 of 2025, under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 , seeking review of the common judgment dated 06.10.2025, passed by this Court in those writ appeals.

2. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the party respondents, the learned Standing Counsel for Kannur University, and the learned Standing Counsel for Mahatma Gandhi University.

3. According to the learned Senior Government Pleader, the common judgment dated 06.10.2025 passed by this Court is suffering from error apparent on the face of the record. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the 1^st proviso to Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (‘2016 Act’, for short) provides that the reservation in promotion shall be in accordance with such instructions as are issued by the appropriate Government from time to time. Such a provision was not there in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ( ‘1995 Act’, for short). As per Schedule 7 List II Entry 41 of the Constitution of India , the State Public Services; State Public Service Commission are coming under the State list. It is on the strength of the aforesaid constitutional right, Section 34 of the 2016 Act provides the State Government the right to give instructions regarding reservation in promotion to persons suffering from benchmark disability. Similarly, Rules 14 to 19 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules (‘KS & SSR’, in short) Part II also provide for reservation in state service. A person suffering from benchmark disability who gets appointment in the entry cadre will automatically get promotion based on seniority, unless disqualified. There is no provision for reservation in promotion in the State, as undertaken by the Central Government. The roster points for reservation in promotion maintained by the State Government are entirely different from those of the Central Government. Therefore, there is no reservation provided for persons suffering from disability in the posts that are less than five in a cadre. The power of the State Government vested under Entry 41 of List II of the 7^th Schedule of the is an independent power, and it is not dependent upon the office memorandum issued by the Central Government. Therefore Ext.P7 office memorandum cannot be applied to the appointments under the State Government. This Court failed to consider these aspects while passing the impugned judgment.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents in the different review petitions submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment. The learned counsel for the party respondents in R.P.No.1545 of 2025 further submitted that, in fact, no error in the judgment is pointed out in the review petition, and instead they are filed as an appeal against the judgment of this Court. Ext.P7 office memorandum was issued by the Central Government to comply with the directions of the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph [(2021) 9 SCC 208]. The learned counsel further submitted that Sections 32 and 33 of the 1995 Act have to be read along with Section 47 of the said Act. In the 2016 Act, Sections 33 and 34 correspond to Sections 32 and 33 of the 1995 Act. Similarly, Section 20 of the 2016 Act corresponds to Section 47 of the 1995 Act. In Leesamma Joseph [ (2021) 9 SCC 208 ], the Apex Court considered the aforesaid provisions in the 1995 Act and held that reservation in promotion has