High CourtsDivision Bench(2026) 07 KL CK 1633

Lilly K & Ors. vs State Of Kerala & Ors.

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 20 July 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Soumen Sen, C.J · Syam Kumar V.M., J
CASE NUMBER
RP No. 533 of 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 427 words

O R D E R

Syam Kumar V.M., J.

This review petition is filed seeking review of the judgment dated 27th February, 2026 in W.A. No. 1639 of 2024. The contention of the review petitioners is that they, being respondents 7 and 37 respectively in the writ petition, are likely to be adversely affected by the judgment rendered insofar as their seniority will be restructured to their detriment. It is submitted that they were not specifically heard when the judgment was rendered despite the fact that they had been arrayed as party respondents in the writ petition.

2.

We have heard Ms. A. Parvathi Menon, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Adarsh Babu C.S., learned counsel representing Mr. K. R. Ganesh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4, and Mr. Adarsh Kumar, learned counsel for the 42nd respondent.

3.

It is noted that the dispute considered by this Court in the subject writ appeal, judgment whereof is sought to be reviewed, was not a dispute inter se the officers occupying the respective positions, but one arising out of a question of general import. Insofar as the consequences flowing from such a decision that affects the seniority of other respondents, the same are only the natural consequences of the decision taken. The contention that the review petition is maintainable on the ground that the respondents were not specifically heard does not arise as they are in the party array and were represented.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, while preparing the seniority list, if they have any objection, they may be permitted to raise the same. The order under review has not debarred the petitioners from raising any objection to the proposed seniority list, if any. The individual rights of the petitioners have not been decided in the writ appeal. Therefore, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference with the judgment under review.

5.

Accordingly, the review petition is disposed of.

APPENDIX OF RP NO. 533 OF 2026

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST OF DISTRICT JUDGES IN THE STATE WHICH WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT IN ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS V UNION OF INDIA BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT IN OCTOBER, 2025

Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.04.2019 IN W.A 2795/2015

Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.05.2019 IN RP.NO. 413 OF 2019 IN W.A. NO.2795/2015

Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM (OM) DATED 17.09.2025 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT