Smt. Jincy George vs. State Of Kerala

Facts

The review petitioners, Smt. Jincy George and Sri. Alex Varghese, are employees in the State Goods and Service Tax Department. They filed Original Applications before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) claiming entitlement to appointment as clerks against a 10% quota reserved for last-grade servants and low-paid employees, as per Annexures A1 and A2. Their grievance was that this quota was not being implemented in the SGST Department in Idukki District. The KAT directed the Joint Commissioner to pass orders on their representation, holding them entitled to the 10% reservation. The State of Kerala challenged the KAT's order by filing OP(KAT) No. 52 of 2023 before the High Court, which allowed the State's petition and set aside the Tribunal's order. The review petitioners then filed this Review Petition, alleging an error apparent on the face of the record.

Held

The Court held that there was an error apparent on the face of the record. It found that specific clauses 6 and 7 of Annexure-A2 were indeed not taken into consideration when the judgment in OP(KAT) No. 52 of 2023 was passed. Consequently, the Court was of the considered opinion that this omission constituted a manifest error. Therefore, the Review Petition was allowed, and the judgment dated 10.04.2023 in OP(KAT) No. 52 of 2023 was recalled. The case was then posted for further hearing. The Court did not decide on the substantive claim of the petitioners regarding the 10% quota, but rather on the procedural ground of an apparent error in the previous judgment.

Key Issues

1. Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment dated 10.04.2023 in OP(KAT) No. 52 of 2023, specifically concerning the non-consideration of clauses 6 and 7 of Annexure-A2, thereby warranting a review of the judgment. Petitioner's Argument: The review petitioners argued that the High Court's judgment in OP(KAT) No. 52 of 2023 failed to consider crucial clauses 6 and 7 of Annexure-A2, which are relevant to their claim for appointment under the 10% quota. They contended that this omission constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record, justifying a review of the judgment that set aside the Tribunal's order. Revenue's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or State in response to the review petition. However, their initial challenge in OP(KAT) No. 52 of 2023 led to the setting aside of the Tribunal's order.