V.M. Syam Kumar, J.

1. This Review Petition is filed seeking to review the judgment dated 08.10.2025 in W.A.No.1552 of 2021. Review Petitioners were the appellants in the said Writ Appeal.

2. The Writ Appeal was filed challenging the judgment dated 12.10.2021 of the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C) No.9482 of 2015 filed by the Review Petitioners. In the said W.P.(C), the Review Petitioners had sought to quash Ext.P12 order declining their regularisation in the Kerala Water Authority (KWA).

3. In the judgment sought to be reviewed, this Court had affirmed the dismissal of the W.P.(C), and held that in the light of the specific provisions under Rule 9 (a) (i) of Part II of KS & SSR, 1958, appointees like the Review Petitioners cannot claim regularisation or even seek continuance beyond the period of 179 days. This Review Petition is filed, contending that the dismissal of the Writ Appeal is erroneous and the Review Petitioners are entitled to regularisation in the light of settled precedents.

4. Heard Sri.Luiz Godwin D Couth, Advocate for the Review Petitioners, Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, Government Pleader for the 1st respondent and Sri.Georgie Johny, Advocate, Standing Counsel for respondents 2 to 4.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the judgment in the Writ Appeal is fit to be reviewed since it fails to take note that the Review Petitioners had been continuing in the Kerala Water Authority in the category of operators for the last 25 years without any break. They are hence entitled to regularisation in the service under the Kerala Water Authority. Placing reliance on the dictum laid down in Jacob v. Kerala Water Authority [1990 (2) KLT 673 (SC)], it is contended that those employees who are working without any break under the Kerala Water Authority are entitled to regularisation in view of the mandates in Rule 9 (a) (i) of the KS & SSR 1958, and Section 8, 19 (3) and 69 of the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1986. Reliance is also placed on the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others [AIR 2006 SC 1806] and it is submitted that by virtue of long and continued service in Kerala Water Authority, the Review Petitioners acquired a right for regularisation. They cannot at this point of time aspire for any other job and is entitled to regularisation on humanitarian grounds also. It is further submitted that in the course of the arguments in the Writ Appeal, the Review Petitioners could not point out the above said landmark decisions in the matter of regularisation of similar employees, and it is prayed that the Review Petition may be allowed.

6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the Review Petition is not maintainable as the same does not disclose any error apparent on the face of the record. Not even a single error in the judgment had been pointed out, and there is not even a pleading that an error apparent on the face of the record exists. None of the mandates for exercising review jurisdiction are thus met or satisfied. The Review Petitioners were engaged by contractors for pumping duty, and the KWA had no employer- employee relationship with the petitioners. The wage for pumping duty is paid to the contractors who supply labourers. The Review Petitioners are not even daily wage casual labourers or HR labourers. Reliance is placed on the dictum laid down in Col. Avtar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India and others reported in [1980 Supp SCC 562]; Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and Others [(1997) 8 SCC 715]; Kerala State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd. and others reported in [(2005) 6 SCC 651]; Jain Studios Ltd. v. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. reported in [(2006) 5 SCC 501]; S.Bagirathi Ammal v. Palani Roman Catholic Mission [(2009) 10 SCC 464]; Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and others reported in [(2013) 8 SCC 320] and Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) Through LRs and others v. Vinod Kumar Rawat and others [(2020) SCC Online SC 896] to buttress the contention that the Review Petition is not maintainable for the total absence of error apparent on the face of the record.

7. We have considered the contention put forth by both sides and have perused the precedents relied on. It is trite that to seek review, it has to be demonstrated that the order suffers from an error contemplated under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which is to be fished out and searched. Further a decision or order cannot be reviewed merely because it is erroneous. In Kamlesh Verma (supra), the principles for exercising review jurisdiction have been succinctly summarised as below:

                   “20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:

                  20.1.   When the review will be maintainable:

                  (i)       Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;

                  (ii)      Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;

                  (iii)     Any other sufficient reason.

                  The words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chajju Ram vs. Neki (AIR 1922 PC 112), and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors. (AIR 1954 SC 526) to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors reported in (2013) 8 SCC 337,

                  20.2.   When the review will not be maintainable:

                  (i)       A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.

                  (ii)      Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.

                  (iii)     Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.

                  (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.

                  (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error.

                  (vi)     The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.

                  (vii)    The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.

                  (viii)    The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.

                  (ix)     Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.”

                  As laid down in Jain Studios Ltd. (supra), a Review Petition cannot be used as a pretext to reiterate previously raised and rejected arguments. A review cannot be an attempt to reopen the conclusions reached in a judgment. The scope of review should not be conflated with appellate jurisdiction, by which a superior court can rectify errors committed by a subordinate court.

8. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, all contentions raised in the Review Petition are more or less mere reiteration of the earlier contentions. Such contentions do not help in sustaining a Review Petition. In our considered opinion, none of the grounds available for successfully seeking review as recognised by Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC are made out in the present petition. No error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference in the impugned judgment has been pointed out or revealed.

9. In view of the above settled position of law, the Review Petition, insofar as it does not reveal any error apparent on the face of the record, and is only a reiteration of the earlier contentions in the Writ Appeal, which have been duly considered and turned down, does not hold merit.

                  The Review Petition is fit to be dismissed, and it is hereby ordered so.