A review petition must demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record to warrant reconsideration of a judgment; mere repetition of previous arguments does not suffice.

O R D E R

Dated this the 27th day of February, 2026 Syam Kumar V.M., J This Review Petition is filed seeking to review the judgment dated 21.11.2025 in W.P.(C) No.12835 of 2025. Review petitioner was the petitioner in the said W.P.(C).

2. The W.P.(C) was filed by the review petitioner who is the applicant to the post of LD Clerk in Kerala Water Authority (KWA), aggrieved by the rejection of her application and by the exclusion of her name in the probability list published by the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC). She had in the W.P.(C) inter alia sought to quash Exhibit P15 Probability List and prayed for a declaration that she who possess the Data Entry and Software Certificate from the Lal Bahadur Sastri Centre for Science and Technology (LBS) possesses the required qualification mentioned in Exhibit P1 notification and is eligible to be appointed to the post of LD Clerk in the KWA.

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

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

5. The learned counsel for the review petitioner 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 P10 certificate 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 petitioner, especially when she has 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 petitioner was included in the ranked list dated 14.07.2023 by the KPSC, after the certificate verification and after being satisfied that she possesses the relevant qualifications as per the notification, the subsequent exclusion of the petitioner 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 selection process even if its applicability is not declared specifically in the notification. It is thu