High Court Dismisses Review Petition Seeking Reassessment Of Teacher Seniority And Service Book Entries

A bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. heard a review petition filed by R. Biji challenging the judgment dated 08.07.2025 in WA No.1459 of 2023 which had dismissed the writ appeal and affirmed the Single Judge's order in W.P.(C) No.19703 of 2019. The petition sought review of the High Court’s conclusions on fixation of seniority and the validity of prior service entries in the service book of a rival teacher, invoking Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The court dismissed the review petition, holding that the petitioner sought to re-agitate issues already decided on merits and failed to establish any ground for review such as discovery of new evidence or an error apparent on the face of the record. The Court reiterated established principles that "review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise" and that review power is limited to cases of "discovery of new and important matter or evidence", "mistake or error apparent on the face of the record" or "any other sufficient reason". The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “From the averments in the review petition, we notice that the petitioner is now trying to reagitate the issue which was already decided by this Court on merits in the judgment dated 08.07.2025 in the writ appeal. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Government Pleader, the contention of the petitioner-appellant that the previous service of the 6th respondent cannot be considered for fixing the seniority, and also the applicability of the judgment in Manager, VKNM Vocational Higher Secondary School [(2016) 4 SCC 216] were considered by this Court in the impugned judgment. ... There is no procedure to amend the service Book pointed out by the petitioner under the provisions of KER. Therefore, the aforesaid contention of the petitioner relying on Rules 22 and 24 of Chapter XIVA of KER cannot be accepted. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that, only for the reason that the aforesaid contention raised by the petitioner-appellant was not considered in the appeal judgment, there is no necessity to review the said judgment.”

Background: The dispute concerned seniority between two school teachers after entries regarding prior service were incorporated into the service book of the 6th respondent, Raji S. Sindhu. The review petitioner, R. Biji, contended that the earlier appointment which purportedly buttressed the 6th respondent’s seniority was not properly recorded, arguing that short-term hands with less than one academic year did not acquire the status of a relieved teacher — placing reliance on Manager, VKNM Vocational Higher Secondary School v. State of Kerala [(2016) 4 SCC 216]. The petitioner further challenged the mode of amending service records and invoked Rules 22 and 24 (history of service and annexure to the service book) and sought application of Rule 37(2) read with Rule 51A of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules (KER).

The Manager and State respondents contested the review as an attempt to reargue matters already considered in the writ appeal, and placed on record a counter-affidavit stating that the service book entry had been checked by the Superintendent of the Audit Team of the Deputy Director of Education, Alappuzha, during an audit on 13.04.1999, supporting the veracity of the register. The High Court reviewed the scope of review jurisdiction, relying on Apex Court authorities including Parsion Devi, Northern India Caterers and subsequent rulings that review is not a forum for rehearing on merits. It found that the High Court had already considered the applicability of the Manager VKNM decision and the contentions on Rules 22 and 24 in the impugned judgment, and that no procedure to amend the service book under KER had been demonstrated by the petitioner. The review petition was therefore dismissed with the writ appeal judgment left intact; no interim directions or modification to the earlier order were granted.

Case Details: Case No.: R.P.No.32 of 2026 Case Title: R. Biji v. State of Kerala & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Sri D. Jothikumar; Shri T.N. Jayadevan For the Respondent(s): Smt. Nisha Bose, Senior Government Pleader (State of Kerala); Adv. K. Shaj (for R5)