Review petitions require clear errors in previous judgments, which are not established in this case.

ORDER

This review petition is preferred against the judgment dated 28.10.2025 in W.P.(C) No.35805/2025, wherein, at the concluding portion, the learned single Judge quashed Ext.P4 and Ext.P5 and directed the Vice Chancellor and the Governing Council to proceed with the recommendation of the Malpractices and Lapses Enquiry Committee [for brevity, ‘M&LEC’] in strict compliance with the procedure prescribed in the Kerala University of Health Sciences First Statutes.

2. Sri.P.Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioner submitted that paragraph Nos.7 and 8 as well as the concluding portion of the judgment under review, indicate a clear error apparent on the face of the record, since, after rejecting the contention of the petitioners regarding absence of reasonable opportunity granted before the M&LEC, the learned single Judge proceeded to consider the validity of the show cause notice. It was submitted that, the procedure that followed the recommendation of M&LEC, what was found to be incorrect, but, in that process, quashed Ext.P4 without noticing that Ext.P4 was the recommendation of M&LEC.

3. Sri.P.Ramakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioners, on the other hand, submitted that the learned single Judge had specifically considered the merits of Ext.P4 and came to the conclusion that there was no discussion on the explanation offered by each of the petitioners in Ext.P4 and hence the quashing of Ext.P4 was not an error apparent on the face of the record, but conscious order.

4. On a consideration of the rival submissions and on a perusal of the impugned judgment, this Court notices that the observations in paragraph No.8 that, “Pertinent here to note that, neither Ext.P4 nor Ext.P5 discusses the allegations against each petitioner and the explanations offered by them.” is a reflection of the application of mind by the learned single Judge to the contentions raised against Ext.P4, which was in fact one of the challenges in the writ petition itself. The observation in paragraph No.7 of the judgment was only with respect to whether Ext.P4 was issued in compliance with the principles of natural justice. The same did not touch upon the merits of Ext.P4, which is referred to in paragraph No.8. The conclusion to quash Ext.P4 is, therefore, based on the said reasoning, and hence, it cannot be concluded that there is an error apparent on the face of the records.

5. The remedy of appeal cannot be converted into a review petition unless there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Considering the entire facts, I am of the view that, there is no error apparent on the face of the records. Hence, this review petition is dismissed.

6. Needless to mention that, the consequence of the order of the learned single Judge is only that the University will have to proceed with a fresh recommendation by M&LEC in accordance with law.