ORDER Muralee Krishna, J. The respondents 1 to 14 in O.P.(KAT)No.343 of 2025 filed this review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908, (‘CPC’, in short) seeking review of the judgment dated 09.09.2025, passed by this Court in that original petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission (‘KPSC’ in short), the learned counsel for the petitioners in the original petition and the learned Senior Government Pleader. 3. The learned counsel for the review petitioners would submit that the Public Service Commission did not raise the contentions regarding improper parties in the original application. Therefore, the finding regarding the same made in the judgment is incorrect. By vacating the order in M.A.(EKM) No.1111 of 2025, the direction to provisionally report vacancies has been nullified, rendering the said M.A. as well as the O.A. infructuous, since Annexure A2 ranked list expired on 31.07.2025 and the prayer in the said M.A. was to report vacancies prior to the expiry of Annexure A2. If the vacancies are not provisionally reported, even if the O.A. is ultimately allowed, the vacancies will not be filled up from the ranked list in which the review petitioners are included. If the vacancies claimed by the review petitioners are not reported at least provisionally prior to 31.07.2025, as per the judgment in Vimala Kumari and others v. State of Kerala and others [1994 (1) ILR 213] , the review petitioners will not be able to raise any claim later on. The learned counsel further submitted that the order of the Tribunal in M.A.(EKM) No.973 of 2025 has been nullified without a direction to extend Ext.P2 interim order, rendering the direction to reconsider meaningless. The learned counsel submitted that if this Court is not inclined to recall the judgment dated 09.09.2025, at least the operation of Ext.P2 order may be extended till the final disposal of M.A (EKM)No.973 of 2025 by the Tribunal. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for KPSC would submit that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment of this Court, and hence there is no necessity to review the same. 5. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for KPSC would submit that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment of this Court, and hence there is no necessity to review the same. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners in the original petition would submit that in M.A. (EKM) No.1111 of 2025, the prayer of the review petitioners is to recall the vacancies reported prior to the issuance of Annexure A5 order and report the vacancies of LDC (Kanada and Malayalam knowing) only after the identification of those posts. Such a course of recalling of already reported vacancies cannot be done by the concerned department in view of the Circular issued by the Government. 6. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the available vacancies of LDC (Kannada and Malayalam knowing) were already reported, and they cannot be recalled to report the vacancies as claimed by the review petitioners. 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 and that of 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.” 9. Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC reads thus: “1. Application for review of judgment. 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 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. 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 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 the face of the 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 Shanthi 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 addressed and decided”. 16. Again in Govt. 16. 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 erroneous, then the remedy was to challenge the same by filing an appeal and not by filing a review petition. 18. The perusal of the materials on record would show that on 30.05.2025, when the original application came up for admission, the Tribunal passed Ext.P2 order, which is extracted in paragraph 7 of the judgment dated 09.09.2025 in O.P.(KAT) No.343 of 2025 by this Court, which reads thus. “Admit. Learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 1 to 43. Learned Standing Counsel for PSC takes notice for respondents 44 and 45. In view of Annexure A5 and as the identification of the post of LDC (Kannada and Malayalam knowing) is not yet over, there shall be a stay of advice by the PSC against the vacancies reported in Annexure A12. There shall also be a further direction to respondents 5 to 43 not to report any more vacancies of LDC (Kannada and Malayalam knowing) to the PSC pending finalization of identification for a period of one month. Hand over.” 19. There shall also be a further direction to respondents 5 to 43 not to report any more vacancies of LDC (Kannada and Malayalam knowing) to the PSC pending finalization of identification for a period of one month. Hand over.” 19. When the petitioners in the original petition self-impleaded and filed M.A. (EKM) No.973 of 2025 to vacate that interim order, the Tribunal passed Ext.P7 order, which reads as under: “The stay of advice by the Public Service Commission against the vacancies reported in Annexure A12 as ordered on 30.05.2025 shall stand modified and stay of advice shall be limited against the vacancies reported after 01.08.2022. The interim order dated 30.05.2025, as modified above, would stand extended by one month.” 20. Subsequently, when review petitioners filed M.A.(EKM)No.1111 of 2025 seeking a direction from the Tribunal to report the vacancies of LD Clerks in various departments, the Tribunal passed Ext.P8 order, which reads thus: “Heard the counsel for the applicants as well as the learned counsel for respondents 46 to 49. 2. Subsequently, when review petitioners filed M.A.(EKM)No.1111 of 2025 seeking a direction from the Tribunal to report the vacancies of LD Clerks in various departments, the Tribunal passed Ext.P8 order, which reads thus: “Heard the counsel for the applicants as well as the learned counsel for respondents 46 to 49. 2. Though the learned counsel for the party respondents vehemently opposed the relief sought for in this Miscellaneous Application, in order to see that nobody is put to prejudice the following interim order is passed: (i) There shall be a direction to respondent No.5 and 8 to report 49 vacancies in the Department of Land Revenue, respondents 16 and 17 to report 2 vacancies in the Education Department, respondent No.13 to report 1 vacancy in the SC Department, respondents 18 and 19 to report 16 vacancies in the Local Self Government Department, respondent No.14 to report 2 vacancies in the Co-operation Department, respondent No.20 to report 1 vacancy in the Industries and Commerce Department, respondents 21 and 22 to report 1 vacancy in the Animal Husbandry Department, respondents 23 and 24 to report 3 vacancies in the Agriculture Department, respondent No.25 to report 1 vacancy in the Woman & Child Development Department, respondent No.26 to report 1 vacancy in the Medical Education Department, respondent No.15 to report 2 vacancies in the Food and Civil Supplies Department, respondent No.28 to report 1 vacancy in the Harbour Department, respondent No.29 to report 1 vacancy in the Soil Survey Department, respondent No.30 to report 3 vacancies in the GST Department, respondents 32 and 33 to report 1 vacancy in the Fire and Rescue Department, respondents 34 and 35 to report 4 vacancies in the Registration Department, respondents 36 and 37 to report 1 vacancy in the Motor Vehicles Department, respondents 38 and 39 to report 1 vacancy in the Treasury Department, respondent No.9 to report 1 vacancy in the Electrical Inspectorate' respondent No.40 to report 1 vacancy in the ST Development Department, respondents 11 and 12 to report 1 vacancy in the Health Services Department, respondent No.10 to report 1 vacancy in the Labour Department, respondent No.41 to report 1 vacancy in the National Employment Scheme and respondent No.42 to report 2 vacancies in the College Education Department to respondents 44 and 45 on or before 31.07.2025, provisionally and subject to further orders. (ii) There shall be a further direction to the Public Service Commission not to advise any candidates against the provisionally reported vacancies without taking orders from this Tribunal”. 21. After appreciating the rival contentions of the parties and perusing the materials on record, by the judgment dated 09.09.2025, this Court set aside Exts.P7 and P8 orders which are under challenge in the original petition, and directed the Tribunal to consider and pass orders in the Interlocutory Applications, if found necessary, before the final disposal of the original application itself. 22. Having considered rival contentions of the parties, we find no error apparent on the face of the record in the said judgment. However, we notice that Exts.P7 and P8 orders are passed by the Tribunal in continuation of Ext.P2 order dated 30.05.2025, whereby that order was modified. When Exts.P7 and P8 orders are set aside, the natural consequence is the restoration of Ext.P2 order. At the same time, the period of Ext.P2 order was already over, as it was granted for a period of one month from the date of that order. But, whatever order the Tribunal passes in MA (EKM) No.973 of 2025 filed by respondents 46 to 49 in the O.A to vacate Ext.P2 interim order dated 30.05.2025 and in MA (EKM) No.1111 of 2025 filed by the review petitioners seeking a direction from the Tribunal to report the vacancies of LD Clerks in various departments will in effect modify Ext.P2 order. If found necessary, the Tribunal is empowered to revive and extend the period of Ext.P2 order, since the same is not interfered by this Court. In such circumstances, the review petition is dismissed with the above observations.