Review petition challenging a judgment that denied the petitioner retrospective pay equality. The court emphasized that review is not an appeal and cannot be used to correct merit-based errors or raise new contentions.
The review petition was dismissed as the petitioner has not made out any case for review.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
RP NO. 919 OF 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
RP NO. 919 OF 2006
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. No.25112/1999 DATED 10.08.2006 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER :
T.M.VENUGOPALAN, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. GOPALAN NAMBIAR, HEADMASTER, CHELORA NORTH L.P.SCHOOL, MOWANCHERRY P.O., KANNUR-670 613.
BY ADVS. BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA C.P.SIVADASAN NAIR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :
3 THE MANAGER, CHELORA NORTH L.P.SCHOOL, MOWANCHERRY P.O., KANNUR-670 613. BY ADV.SMT NISHA BOSE, SR. GP
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
RP NO. 919 OF 2006
JUDGMENT
This review petition is filed seeking to review the judgment dated
10.08.2006 in O.P. No.25112 of 1999.
being test qualified as on 18.10.1987, he was appointed as Headmaster, only
with effect from 2.1.1989.
representation made prior to the appointment has no relevance. Consequently, the relief of parity in pay as applicable to primary headmasters on completion of 15 years was also rejected.
repeated requests before the 3rd respondent in the original petition and this
aspect of the matter was not considered.
3
RP NO. 919 OF 2006
the learned Government Pleader.
errors apparent on the face of the record. It is also settled beyond any manner of doubt that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and
have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised
on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power, which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of
errors committed by the subordinate court.
circumstances, held that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought. If
4
RP NO. 919 OF 2006
the above decision was erroneous on merit, it was open to the petitioner to
approach the court of appeal and seek correction. A power of review is not to
be confused with appellate powers, which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court. As held by
the Apex Court in Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000) 6 SCC 224, review is
not an appeal in disguise.
that the petitioner has not made out any case for reviewing the judgment.
This review petition will stand dismissed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE
NS
5
RP NO. 919 OF 2006
APPENDIX OF R.P. NO.919 OF 2006
PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURES :
ANNEXURE A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.11.98 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE B TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDING NO.3819/99 DATED 28.06.99 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 11.1.05 IN OP NO.14570/98.
RESPONDENT(S) ANNEXURES :
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a review petition that raises substantial questions of merit regarding the grant of retrospective pay equality is maintainable.
Whether the petitioner has shown any error apparent on the face of the record warranting exercise of the court's power of review.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lily Thomas v. Union of IndiaReferred¶46
Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000) 6 SCC 224 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
T.M.VENUGOPALAN
THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANNUR NORTH
THE MANAGER, CHELORA NORTH L.P.SCHOOL
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
