The review jurisdiction under CPC is not meant for re-arguing settled questions and is limited to error correction or consideration of new evidence.

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 appellant in WA No.1459 of 2023, seeking review of the judgment dated 08.07.2025, passed by this Court, whereby that writ appeal was dismissed confirming the impugned judgment dated 10.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.19703 of 2019.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 5^th respondent and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in the judgment dated 08.07.2025 passed by this Court, the binding ratio in Manager, VKNM Vocational Higher Secondary School v. State of Kerala [(2016) 4 SCC 216] was overlooked, which explicitly holds that short term hands, having less than one academic year appointment do not acquire the statutory status of a Relieved Teacher. The service book of the 6^th respondent was opened in the year 2007, and there was no entry regarding any history of service for the prior period entered therein. However, without amending the service book, the prior service details were pasted in the service book, which ought not have been accepted by this Court while passing the judgment. Since the prior appointment is not available to the 6^th respondent, the seniority by age has to be given to the petitioner who is elder in age than the 6^th respondent. Rule 37(2) is a consequence of Rule 51A of Chapter XIVA of Kerala Education Rules (‘ KER ’ in short), and hence, they cannot legally exist in isolation. Since the judgment was passed without considering these aspects, there is error apparent on the face of the record, and hence the judgment may be recalled, and the appeal may be allowed.

4. The learned counsel for the 5^th respondent Manager, would submit that the arguments now advanced by the petitioner were not made at the time of hearing the writ petition or the writ appeal. Hence, the petitioner cannot take those contentions in a review petition. The learned counsel further submitted that the appointment of the 6^th respondent was approved prior to the petitioner, and these facts were correctly appreciated in the judgment, and there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment.

5. The learned Senior Government Pleader would point out that the contentions regarding Rules 37 and 51A of Chapter XIVA of KER were considered by this Court in paragraph 17 of the judgment. Similarly, the contentions of the petitioner regarding the previous service of the 6^th respondent were also taken note of by this Court. In fact, the petitioner is now raising a contention that the reasoning given by this Court in the judgment is incorrect, which is nothing but an appeal in disguise.

6. In order 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 as well as 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.

7. 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 allowed by this Code, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed t