Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:6660 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 181 of 2024 • Smt. Pankajni Chouhan, W/o Dileshwar Chouhan, R/o Village Lamipali, Post Jhal, Tahsil Baramkela, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No.6). ... Applicant versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No.1). 2. Director, Directorate Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No.2). 3. The Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No.3). 4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No.4). 5. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Sarangarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No.5). 6. Janak Ram Banjare, S/o Kushwa Ram Banjare, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Bayang, Post Kachhar, Tahsil & District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, PIN – 496661 (Writ Petitioner). ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant For State/Respondents No.1 to 3 For Respondent No.4 For Respondent No.6
Legal Reasoning
dated 18.07.2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP(S) No.524/2016. Vide order dated 18.07.2024 passed in WP(S) No.524/2016, the Co-ordinate Bench has passed the following order in para 9 :- 1. 2. 3. 2 “9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition is allowed and the amended order dated 11.02.2016 is set aside so far as it relates to the present petitioner for cancellation of his appointment and Respondent No.4/Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Raigarh is directed to issue a letter of appointment to the petitioner pursuant to the earlier selection made on the basis of merit which in any case outweighs respondent no.6 as the petitioner was shown to have obtained 68.46% of marks and even after the subsequent scrutiny, respondent obtained 66.91 marks. Therefore, the merit cannot be given a back seat by any other means to the convenience of few of the respondents.” 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that vide order dated 18.07.2024, this Court has directed respondent No.4/Chief Executive Zila Panchayat Raigarh (C.G.) to issue a letter of appointment to the respondent No.6/Janak Ram Banjare (petitioner therein) pursuant to the earlier selection made on the basis of merit, as he has obtained more marks than present applicant (respondent No.6 therein). He further submits that if, in compliance of aforesaid order, respondent No.6 (herein) is selected then, there is apprehension of applicant that she may be ousted from the employment, whereas, after selection she joined on the post of Panchayat Secretary in the year 2015 and she is working on the same since then. It is further submitted that to avoid the complications, order dated 18.07.2024 may be modified to the extent to direct respondent No.4 (herein)/Chief Executive Zila Panchayat Raigarh (C.G.) to prepare fresh merit list in respect of the scheduled caste candidates. 5. In reply, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4, who is main contesting party would submit that respondent No.4 is ready to comply with the order dated 18.07.2024, as such they are ready to issue a letter of appointment to respondent No.6 (herein) in compliance of the said order. It is further submitted that even if, respondent No.6 (herein) is appointed in compliance of said order, the applicant (herein) (respondent No.6 in WPS No.524/2016) may not be ousted. However, he further submitted that scope of review of the aforesaid order is very limited and if, it is directed to prepare 6. 7. 8. 9. 3 merit list afresh, then it may create further complications, therefore, review petition is liable to be dismissed. Counsels appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3 and 6 also extended their support to the submission made by the counsel for the respondent No.4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. In instant review petition, petitioner has prayed to review the order dated 18.07.2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench to issue a direction to the respondent No.4 to redraw the merit list of scheduled caste category candidates, but this fact was not under consideration before the Co-ordinate Bench in WP(S) No.524/2016. It is well settled principle of law that under the garb of review petition, the petitioner should not be permitted to argue the entire case afresh, which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law. 10. In the case of Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra, [(2019) 20 SCC 753], Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering ambit and scope of power of review, has considered its various judgments and observed as below:- “15.1. In Inderchand Jain v. Motilal, [(2009) 14 SCC 663 ] it was observed in paras 10, 11 and 33 as under: (SCC pp. 669 & 675) “10. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order. 11. Review is not appeal in disguise. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India [(2000) 6 SCC 224 ] 4 this Court held: ‘56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise.’ * * * 33. The High Court had rightly noticed the review jurisdiction of the court, which is as under: ‘The law on the subject—exercise of power of review, as propounded by the Apex Court and various other High Courts may be summarised as hereunder: (i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. (ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the face of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. (iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. (iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate. (v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit.’ In our opinion, the principles of law enumerated by it, in the facts of this case, have wrongly been applied.” 15.2. In Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa, [(1999) 9 SCC 5 596] , it was observed: “29. In review proceedings, the Tribunal deviated from the principles laid down above which, we must say, is wholly unjustified and exhibits a tendency to rewrite a judgment by which the controversy had been finally decided. This, we are constrained to say, is not the scope of review under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.…” 15.3. Similarly, in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, [(1997) 8 SCC 715] the principles were summarised as under:- “9. 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.” 17. We have gone through both the judgments of the High Court in the instant case and considered rival submissions on the point. It is well settled that an error which is required to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. To justify exercise of review jurisdiction, the error must be self- evident. Tested on this parameter, the exercise of jurisdiction in the present case was not correct. The exercise undertaken in the present case, in our considered view, was as if the High Court was sitting in appeal over the earlier decision dated 17-2-2017 (Smriti Madan Kansagra, (supra). Even assuming that there was no correct appreciation of facts and law in the earlier judgment, the parties could be left to challenge the decision in an appeal. But the review was not a proper remedy at all. In our view, 6 the High Court erred in entertaining the review petition and setting aside the earlier view dated 17-2-2017.......” 11. The Supreme Court in the judgment dated 03.11.2020 in Civil Appeal No.3601 of 2020 in the case of Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) Through LRs V. Vinod Kumar Rawat and Ors., had laid down that the judgment should be open to review, inter alia, if there is a mistake 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. However, it has also been held that in exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and corrected'. It is further held that there is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the later only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise’. 12. Applying the aforesaid principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, if contentions raised by the petitioner in instant petition are taken into consideration, then, it would require application of mind on the merits of the case and also required to be seen that what would be the merit list. As such, it appears that by presenting instant review petition, petitioner seeks opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on merits under the garb of review petition, which is not permissible and not tenable in law. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this review petition. 13.
Arguments
: Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, G.A. : Mr. R.M. Solapurkar, Advocate. : Mr. Dhani Ram Patel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board Heard. 05/02/2025 This Review Petition has been preferred by the applicant for review of order
Decision
In the result, the instant review petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge DEEPTI JHA NIRALA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA NIRALA Date: 2025.02.06 16:37:36 +0530