The Kerala High Court has firmly reaffirmed that review petitions under Order XLVII Rule 1 and Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot serve as a substitute for appeals. The Court dismissed three review petitions filed by the State of Kerala and its departments, emphasizing that the doctrine of error apparent on the face of the record demands self-evident mistakes - not re-litigation of contested legal interpretations.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from writ appeals challenging the State Government’s refusal to implement reservation in promotion for persons with benchmark disability under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The petitioners, employees with disabilities, sought enforcement of reservation in promotional posts, relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph and the statutory framework under Sections 33 and 34 of the 2016 Act. The High Court, in its judgment dated 06.10.2025, held that reservation in promotion must be granted irrespective of cadre size or roster design, aligning with the spirit of the 2016 Act and prior Supreme Court precedents.
Procedural History
The review petitions were filed against the same judgment:
- Writ Appeals WA No. 382, 173, and 209 of 2025: Filed by persons with benchmark disability seeking reservation in promotion.
- Judgment dated 06.10.2025: High Court directed implementation of reservation in promotion, rejecting State’s argument that roster points could be unilaterally altered.
- Review Petitions RP Nos. 1494, 1506, and 1545 of 2025: Filed by the State of Kerala, Department of Higher Education, and Department of Social Justice, challenging the judgment on grounds of constitutional autonomy and roster flexibility.
Relief Sought
The review petitioners sought to set aside the High Court’s judgment, arguing that the State had independent constitutional authority under Entry 41 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to determine roster points for promotion and that the judgment ignored statutory discretion under Section 34 of the 2016 Act.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a review petition under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be entertained when the petitioner seeks to reargue legal interpretations already examined and decided in a prior judgment, rather than demonstrating an error apparent on the face of the record.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The State contended that the High Court erred by failing to recognize its constitutional autonomy under Entry 41 of List II to frame rules for reservation in promotion. It argued that Section 34 of the 2016 Act explicitly empowers the State to issue instructions on reservation in promotion, and that the Court’s reliance on Leesamma Joseph (which interpreted the 1995 Act) was misplaced. The petitioners further claimed that the judgment ignored the practical impossibility of implementing reservation in cadres with fewer than 25 posts and that the Central Government’s Ext.P7 office memorandum was not binding on State services.
For the Respondent/State
The respondents countered that the review petitions were an attempt to re-agitate issues already decided. They emphasized that Sections 33 and 34 of the 2016 Act are in pari materia with Sections 32 and 33 of the 1995 Act, and that the Supreme Court’s principles in Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind and Leesamma Joseph are binding. They highlighted that the State’s own notification dated 28.11.2025 inserting Rule 28B into KS&SSR demonstrated an intent to comply with judicial directions, undermining the claim of constitutional conflict.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by recalling the narrow scope of review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC. It reiterated that review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be invoked to challenge the correctness of a judgment on merits. The Court cited Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi and N.Anantha Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria to emphasize that an error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident, requiring no reasoning or external research to detect.
"An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC."
The Court found that the petitioners’ arguments - concerning constitutional autonomy, roster design, and statutory interpretation - were fully addressed in the original judgment. Paragraph 44 of the impugned judgment had already examined Section 34 and clarified that while the State may issue instructions, it cannot deviate from the statutory purpose of ensuring substantive equality for persons with disabilities. The Court noted that the petitioners’ reliance on Leesamma Joseph was not misplaced, as the 2016 Act was enacted to strengthen, not dilute, the rights established under the 1995 Act.
The Court further observed that the State’s own subsequent notification (Rule 28B) contradicted its claim of non-compliance, revealing that the review petitions were strategically filed to delay implementation. The Court concluded that the petitioners had not demonstrated any mistake apparent on the face of the record, nor any new evidence or sufficient reason warranting review.
The Verdict
The review petitions were dismissed. The Court held that review jurisdiction under the CPC cannot be used to reargue legal issues already decided on merits, and that the State’s attempt to challenge the judgment through review was an impermissible appeal in disguise. The original judgment dated 06.10.2025, directing reservation in promotion for persons with benchmark disability, stands affirmed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Review Is Not a Second Appeal
- Practitioners must file appeals, not review petitions, to challenge judicial findings on statutory interpretation or factual appreciation.
- Any petition seeking to overturn a judgment on grounds of legal error must be filed as an appeal under the relevant statute, not under CPC Order XLVII.
- Courts will summarily dismiss review petitions that merely restate arguments already rejected.
Statutory Purpose Overrides Administrative Discretion
- Even where statutes grant administrative discretion (e.g., Section 34 of the 2016 Act), such power cannot be exercised to undermine the substantive rights guaranteed by the law.
- State governments cannot justify non-compliance with judicial directions by citing roster flexibility or cadre size.
- The principle of substantive equality under disability law overrides procedural convenience.
Judicial Precedents Bind State Action
- Supreme Court rulings interpreting disability rights legislation bind State authorities, even if the legislation was enacted post the precedent.
- The doctrine of stare decisis applies with full force in public law matters concerning fundamental rights.
- Administrative notifications issued after judgment cannot be used to retroactively justify non-compliance.
