Kerala High Court
Shoba.K vs Kerala Khadi And Village Industries … on 1 July, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
RP Nos. 589, 591 and 595 of 2025 2025:KER:47106
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1947
RP NO. 589 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.03.2025 IN WA NO.1136 OF 2024
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:
BEENA K.T
AGED 51 YEARS
W/O PRADEEP KUMAR, SPINNING INSTRUCTOR, SPINNING UNIT,
ULLIYERI. P.O, KOYILANDY (VIA), KOZHIKODE, PIN-673323
RESIDING AT THIRUVALAMKANDI, THAZHEKUNI, ULLIYERI.P.O,
KOYILANDI (VIA), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
BY ADV SHRI.K.P.RAJEEVAN
RESPONDENTS/1 TO 3 APPELLANTS/2 TO 7 RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VANCHIYOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035
2 THE SECRETARY
KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, VANCHIYOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035
3 PROJECT OFFICER
DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001
4 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES
2
RP Nos. 589, 591 and 595 of 2025 2025:KER:47106
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
5 SAJI P.K, OFFICE ATTENDANT GRADE I, DISTRICT KHADI AND
VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE, IDUKKI (UNDER ORDERS OF
TRANSFER TO DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE OFFICE,
KOTTAYAM), PIN - 685001
6 SAJIMON T.K, OFFICE ATTENDANT GRADE I (BHAVAN MANAGER
KHADI GRAMA SOUBHAGYA, THODUPUZHA IDUKKI (UNDER ORDERS
OF TRANSFER TO DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE OFFICE,
IDUKKI, KHADI GRAMA SOUBHAGYA, THODUPUZHA), PIN -
685584
7 M.T.SUKUMARAN, OFFICE ATTENDANT GRADE I (BHAVAN
MANAGER KHADI GRAMA SOUBHAGYA, VADAKARA KOZHIKODE
(UNDER ORDERS OF TRANSFER TO DISTRICT KHADI AND
VILLAGE OFFICE, KOZHIKODE, KHADI GRAMA SOUBHAGYA,
VADAKARA), PIN - 673101
8 BINU.P, OFFICE ATTENDANT GRADE I DISTRICT KHADI AND
VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE ALAPPUZHA (UNDER ORDERS OF
TRANSFER TO DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE OFFICE,
KOTTAYAM), PIN - 688001
9 GEORGE KURIAKOSE, OFFICE ATTENDANT GRADE I DISTRICT
KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE ALAPPUZHA (UNDER
ORDERS OF TRANSFER TO DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE
OFFICE, ERNAKULAM), PIN - 688001
BY ADVS.
SHRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
SMT.CHINNU MARIA ANTONY
SMT.APARNA NARAYAN MENON
SHRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM), SC,
KERALA KHADI VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD,
SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GP
THIS REVIEW PETITION WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 23.06.2025 ALONG
WITH RP NOS 591 AND 595 OF 2025, THE COURT ON 1.7.2025 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
3
RP Nos. 589, 591 and 595 of 2025 2025:KER:47106
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1947
RP NO. 591 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.03.2025 IN WA NO.1228 OF 2024
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:
SHOBA.K, AGED 52 YEARS
W/O DINESAN, (WEAVING INSTRUCTOR, MEPPAYUR KHADI
PRODUCTION CENTRE, DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE
INDUSTRIES OFFICE, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673524) RESIDING AT,
KANNOTHUKUNNUMMAL, ERAVATTOOR, P.O, PERAMBRA (VIA),
KOZHIKOD, PIN - 673525
BY ADV SHRI.K.P.RAJEEVAN
RESPONDENTS/1 TO 3 APPELLANTS/2 TO 7 RESPONDENTS :
1 KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VANCHIYOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035
2 THE SECRETARY, KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES
BOARD, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035
3 PROJECT OFFICER
DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001
4 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
4
RP Nos. 589, 591 and 595 of 2025 2025:KER:47106
695001
5 SAJI P.K,OFFICE ATTENDANT GRADE I, DISTRICT KHADI AND
VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE, IDUKKI (UNDER ORDERS OF
TRANSFER TO DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES
OFFICE, KOTTAYAM), PIN - 685001
6 SAJIMON T.K, OFFICE ATTENDANT GRADE I (BHAVAN MANAGER
KHADI GRAMA SOUBHAGYA, THODUPUZHA IDUKKI (UNDER ORDERS
OF TRANSFER TO DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES
OFFICE, IDUKKI, KHADI GRAMA SOUBHAGYA, THODUPUZHA),
PIN - 685584
7 M.T.SUKUMARAN, OFFICE ATTENDANT GRADE I (BHAVAN
MANAGER KHADI GRAMA SOUBHAGYA, VADAKARA KOZHIKODE
(UNDER ORDERS OF TRANSFER TO DISTRICT KHADI AND
VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE, KOZHIKODE, KHADI GRAMA
SOUBHAGYA, VADAKARA), PIN - 673101
8 BINU.P, OFFICE ATTENDANT GRADE I DISTRICT KHADI AND
VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE ALAPPUZHA (UNDER ORDERS OF
TRANSFER TO DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES
OFFICE, KOTTAYAM), PIN - 688001
9 GEORGE KURIAKOSE
OFFICE ATTENDANT GRADE I DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE
INDUSTRIES OFFICE ALAPPUZHA (UNDER ORDERS OF TRANSFER
TO DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE,
ERNAKULAM), PIN - 688001
BY ADVS.
SHRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
SMT.CHINNU MARIA ANTONY
SMT.APARNA NARAYAN MENON
SHRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM), SC, KERALA KHADI VILLAGE
INDUSTRIES BOARD,
SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GP
THIS REVIEW PETITION WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 23.06.2025 ALONG
WITH RP NOS 589 AND 595 OF 2025, THE COURT ON 1.7.2025 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
5
RP Nos. 589, 591 and 595 of 2025 2025:KER:47106
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1947
RP NO. 595 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.03.2025 IN WA NO.1227 OF 2024
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:
K.C.JAYASREE
AGED 60 YEARS
W/O ASOKAN, (WEAVING INSTRUCTOR, DISTRICT KHADI AND
VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686001,
RETIRED ON 30.4.2021), RESIDING AT, KADHALIKKATTU,
BRAHMAMANGALAM.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686605
BY ADV SHRI.K.P.RAJEEVAN
RESPONDENTS/1 TO 3 APPELLANTS/2 TO 7 RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VANCHIYOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035
2 THE SECRETARY
KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, VANCHIYOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035
3 PROJECT OFFICER
DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 686001
4 STATE OF KERALA
6
RP Nos. 589, 591 and 595 of 2025 2025:KER:47106
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
5 SHAJI.P.K
CLERK, DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001
6 SAJIMON T.K
CLERK, DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE,
IDUKKI, KHADI GRAMA SOUBHAGYA, THODUPUZHA, PIN -
685584
7 M.T.SUKUMARAN
CLERK, DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE,
KHADI GRAMA SOUBHAGYA, VADAKARA, PIN - 673103
8 BINU.P
CLERK, DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001
9 GEORGE KURIAKOSE
CLERK, DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682017
BY ADVS.
SHRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
SMT.CHINNU MARIA ANTONY
SMT.APARNA NARAYAN MENON
SHRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM), SC,
KERALA KHADI VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD,
SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GP
THIS REVIEW PETITION WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 23.06.2025 ALONG
WITH RP NOS 589 AND 591 OF 2025, THE COURT ON 1.7.2025 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
7
RP Nos. 589, 591 and 595 of 2025 2025:KER:47106
COMMON ORDER
Muralee Krishna, J.
These review petitions are filed under Order XLVII Rule 1
read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC‘
for short), by the respective 1st respondents in W.A. Nos.1136,
1228 and 1227 of 2024, seeking review of the common judgment
dated 13.03.2025 passed by this Court, whereby the writ appeals
were allowed by setting aside the common judgment dated
26.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)Nos.137
of 2021, 28540 of 2020 and 27474 of 2023.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners/1st
respondents, the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Khadi
and Village Industries Board (‘Board’ for short), the learned Senior
Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the party
respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the review petitioners/1st
respondents argued that as per Ext.R1B, Government Order No.
G.O.(Ms)No.46/2012/ID dated 31.03.2012, the pay scale of the
post LD Clerk/LD Accountant/Cashier comes under serial No.67, is
revised from Rs.5,250 – 8,390 to Rs. 9,940 – 16,580. The pay
8
RP Nos. 589, 591 and 595 of 2025 2025:KER:47106
scale of posts of Spinning Instructor and Weaving Instructor come
under serial Nos.82 and 83 respectively, is revised from Rs.4,510
– 6,230 to Rs. 8,500 – Rs.13,210. Therefore, the posts of Spinning
Instructor and Weaving Instructor are low-paid posts than the post
of Lower Division Clerk. This Court erred in holding that the posts
of Spinning Instructor and Weaving Instructors are not included
under the category of low-paid employees. This Court held that by
Ext.P4 letter No.4441/K1/2015/Ind dated 03.08.2015, which was
produced as Ext.R2I also, the Government clarified that Exts.R2D
and R2E orders are not applicable to the employees of the Board.
But after Ext.R2F Government order dated 29.05.2020, Ext R2I
has no validity. This Court failed to consider these aspects while
allowing the writ appeals.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the Board submitted
that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the
appeal judgment. Ext.R2F order dated 29.05.2020 is applicable to
the employees in the administrative service. From Ext.R2G
relevant pages of the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board
(Classification and Conditions of Recruitment of Staff)
Regulations, 2006, there are altogether six services in the Board
9
RP Nos. 589, 591 and 595 of 2025 2025:KER:47106
and when the service of the Lower Division Clerk comes under
the IInd category, Administrative Service (Lower), the service of
Spinning Instructors and Weaving Instructors will fall under the
IVth category, Technical Service (Lower). Hence, the Spinning
Instructors and Weaving Instructors cannot be considered as low-
paid employees coming under the class Administrative Service
(Lower). Ext.R2F order applies to low-paid employees in
Administrative Service and not to the employees in Technical
Service. Moreover, the petitioners were appointed on
compassionate grounds and were subsequently regularised.
5. The learned Senior Government Pleader also supported
the arguments of the learned Standing Counsel for the Board and
submitted that in paragraph 16 of the judgment, this Court
considered the difference between the different categories of
service mentioned in Ext.R2G Regulations. The learned Senior
Government Pleader relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in
Arun Dev Upadhyaya v. Integrated Sales Service Ltd. [(2023) 8
SCC 11] in support of her argument that there is no ground to
review the appeal judgment.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents
10
RP Nos. 589, 591 and 595 of 2025 2025:KER:47106
also supported the arguments of the learned Standing Counsel for
the Board and the learned Senior Government Pleader and
submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of the record
and hence review of the judgment is unwarranted.
7. 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.
8. 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 the decree or made the order, and the Court
may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.”
11
RP Nos. 589, 591 and 595 of 2025 2025:KER:47106
9. Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC reads thus:
“1. Application for review of judgment.
(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed,
but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed,
or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small
Causes,
and who, from the discovery of new and important matter
or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was
not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him
at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or
on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face
of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to
obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against
him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which
passed the decree or made the order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may
apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the
pendency of an appeal by some other party except where
the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and
the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to
the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the
review.
Explanation-
The fact that the decision on a question of law on which
12
RP Nos. 589, 591 and 595 of 2025 2025:KER:47106
the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or
modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in
any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such
judgment.”
10. It is trite that the power of review under Section 114
read with Order XLVII of the CPC is available to be exercised only
on setting up any one of the following grounds by the petitioner.
(i) discovery of a new and important matter or evidence, or
(ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or
(iii) any other sufficient reason.
11. In Northern India Caterers v. Lt. Governor of Delhi
[(1980) 2 SCC 167] the Apex Court held that under the guise of
review, a litigant cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the
questions, which have already been addressed and decided.
12. The Apex Court in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi
[(1997) 8 SCC 715] held thus:
“Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to
review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent
on the face of the record. 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. In exercise of the jurisdiction under
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous
13RP Nos. 589, 591 and 595 of 2025 2025:KER:47106
decision to be “reheard and corrected”. A review petition, it
must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be
allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”.
(Underline supplied)
13. In N.Anantha Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria [(2013) 15
SCC 534] the Apex Court held that the mistake apparent on
record means that the mistake is self-evident, needs no search,
and stares at its face. Surely, review jurisdiction is not an appeal
in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of the matter
on merits.
14. In Sasi (D) through LRs v. Aravindakshan Nair
and others [AIR 2017 SC 1432] the Apex Court held that in
order to exercise the power of review, the error has to be self-
evident and is not to be found out by a process of reasoning.
15. In Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Assam State
Electricity Board and others [(2020) 2 SCC 677] the Apex
Court by referring to Parsion Devi [(1997) 8 SCC 715] held
thus:
“The scope of review is limited and under the guise of
review, petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and
reargue the questions, which have already been
14RP Nos. 589, 591 and 595 of 2025 2025:KER:47106
addressed and decided”.
16. The dictum in Parsion Devi [(1997) 8 SCC
715] is reiterated by the Apex Court in Arun Dev Upadhyaya
[(2023) 8 SCC 11]. Again in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v K.L.
Rathi Steels Ltd. [2024 SCC Online SC 1090] the Apex
Court considered the grounds for review in detail and held
thus:
“Order XVLII does not end with the circumstances as S.114,
CPC, the substantive provision, does. Review power under
S.114 read with Order XLVII, CPC is available to be
exercised, subject to fulfillment of the above conditions, on
setting up by the review petitioner any of the following
grounds:
(i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence; or
(ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or
(iii) any other sufficient reason.”
17. In Sujatha Aniyeri v. Kannur University [2025 KHC
OnLine 212] in which one of us is a party [Muralee Krishna S.,
J], after considering the point, what constitutes an error apparent
on the face of the record, this court held that review jurisdiction
is not an appeal in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing
of the matter on merits. If the direction in the judgment was
15
RP Nos. 589, 591 and 595 of 2025 2025:KER:47106
erroneous, then the remedy was to challenge the same by filing
an appeal and not by filing a review petition.
18. The petitioners approached this Court with the writ
petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
claiming that they are entitled to get appointment to the post of
LD Clerk in the Board under the 10% quota earmarked for the low-
paid employees. By the common judgment dated 26.03.2024, the
learned Single Judge declared that the petitioners are eligible to
be considered for appointment to the post of LD Clerk in the 10%
quota earmarked for by-transfer appointments in accordance with
the Rules. By the common judgment passed in the appeals, this
Court set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge after
considering the merit of the contentions raised by all the parties
concerned. A reading of the judgment passed in the writ appeals
would show that in the judgment, this Court considered all the
contentions now raised by the review petitioners. In paragraph
16 of the judgment, this Court observed that the petitioners were
included in the category of Technical Service (Lower) and not in
the category of Last Grade Service or low-paid employees. It is by
relying on Ext.R2(G) Kerala Khaadi and Village Industries Board
16
RP Nos. 589, 591 and 595 of 2025 2025:KER:47106
(Classification and Conditions of Recruitment of Staff)
Regulations, 2006, this Court found that the posts of Spinning
Instructor and Weaving Instructor are not included under the
category of Last Grade Service or the low-paid employees. In
Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the judgment, by referring to Ext.R2G of
the Regulations, this Court specifically noted that the petitioners
are included in category IV, Technical Service (Lower). In such
circumstances, there is no error apparent on the face of the record
in the finding rendered by this Court that the petitioners’ service
as Spinning Instructors and Weaving Instructors under the
category of Technical Service (Lower) will not come under the low-
paid employees of the Administrative Service (Lower) wherein the
post of LD Clerk (Lower) is included in Ext.R2G. For the very same
reason, Ext.R2F order of the Government will not make any impact
on the claim of the petitioners. It appears from the nature of the
contentions raised by the petitioners that they are now trying to
use the review jurisdiction of this Court as an appeal in disguise,
which is not permissible under law.
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and
the submissions made at the Bar, we find no sufficient reason to
17
RP Nos. 589, 591 and 595 of 2025 2025:KER:47106
say that the petitioners have made out any of the grounds
provided under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the
Code of Civil Procedure to review the judgment dated 13.03.2025
passed by this Court in the writ appeals.
In the result, the review petitions stand dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE