Review jurisdiction is strictly confined to evident errors; reiteration of previously dismissed arguments does not justify a review.

O R D E R

Dated this the 06th day of February, 2026 This Review Petition is filed seeking to review the judgment dated 21.11.2025 in W.P.( C ) No.12554 of 2025. Review petitioner was the petitioner in the said W.P.( ).

2. The W.P.( C ) was filed by the review petitioners who are the applicants to the post of LD lerk in Kerala Water Authority (KWA), aggrieved by the rejection of their application and by the exclusion of their names in the probability list published by the Kerala Public Service ommission (KPSC). They had in the W.P.( ) inter alia sought to quash Exhibit P17 Probability List and prayed for a declaration that they who possess the Data Entry and Software ertificate from the Lal Bahadur Sastri entre for Science and Technology (LBS) possesses the required qualification mentioned in Exhibit P1 notification and are eligible to be appointed to the post of LD lerk in the KWA.

3. This C ourt had considered the contentions in the W.P.( ) along with connected matters including Writ Appeals challenging dismissal of other W.P.( )s, filed by others raising analogous contentions and had vide common judgment dated 21.11.2025 dismissed the W.P.( ) as well as the W.As. Aggrieved by the common judgment dated 21.11.2025 to the extent it dismissed the W.P.( ), this Review Petition is filed.

4. Heard Sri.K.A.Mohamed Haris, Advocate for the review petitioners and Sri.P. C .Sasidharan, Advocate, Standing ounsel for the 1st respondent, Sri.Georgy Johny, Advocate, for the 2nd respondent, Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, learned Government Pleader for respondents 3 to 7 and Sri.B.Ravisankar, Advocate for the 8th respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the review petitioners contended that both the certificate courses i.e., 'Data Entry and Software Operation' and 'Data Entry and Office Automation' conducted by the LBS with 120 hours duration are one and the same and that there is only periodical updation of the nomenclatures of the course. The word 'Software Operation' had been substituted by the word 'Office Automation' and apart from that there is no cardinal change between the courses. It is submitted that the LBS had already issued Exhibit P12 and Exhibit P14 certificates as provided in paragraph 17 of the General Conditions issued by the KPSC and that the updation of nomenclature of the course cannot be taken as a sole reason or yardstick to reject the legitimate claim and expectation of the petitioners, especially when they have received good marks in the written test. The learned counsel submits that there has been an error in the second part of the eligibility criteria mentioned in the notification and Special Rules regarding the acquisition of certificate qualification, which needed to be rectified, The learned counsel contends that the KPSC was already treating the courses 'Data Entry and Software Operation' and 'Data Entry and Office Automation' as identical and equivalent and therefore any change in their stance is arbitrary, discriminatory and with ulterior motives. Since the petitioners were included in the ranked list dated 14.07.2023 by the KPSC, after the certificate verification and after being satisfied that they possess the relevant qualifications as per the notification, the subsequent exclusion of the petitioners from the ranked list in the absence of any specific direction by the Apex Court or this Court, is arbitrary and illegal. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Dharun v. Shino M.Gopal [2020 (5) KLT 559] , wherein it had been declared that statutory rules such as Rule 1(a) (ii) applies to every selec