Miss Sandhya Mahadik v. Director National Institute of Technology & Ors

Judgment

#3. Director National Institute of Technology, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Registrar National Institute of Technology Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Union of India Through Secretary, MHRD, New Delhi. ...Respondent(s) : For Petitioner For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : For Respondent No. 3/UOI :

Ms. Deepali Pandey, Advocate. Mr. R.K. Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate. Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board

15.10 .2025 BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE 15:16:37 +0530

#1. Heard Ms. Deepali, Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.K. Sahu, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No. 1 & 2 2 and Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General, appearing for respondent No. 3/UOI.

#2. The petitioner has filed this review petition against the order dated

25.06.2025 passed by this Court in WA No. 397 of 2025, whereby the Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ appeal filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 herein.

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had earlier filed WPS No. 6326/2023 seeking regularization of her services as a Sports Assistant, a position she has been holding as a daily-wage employee in the Sports Department of the National Institute of Technology (NIT), Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). The petitioner was appointed as a Sports Assistant (Skilled) on a daily-wage basis on

29.10.2014. She further submits that the petitioner was appointed after successfully qualifying in an interview conducted by a duly constituted selection committee comprising Professor A.P. Rajimvale, Dean Student Welfare; Dr. Sudhaker Pandey, Professor Incharge of Sports; and Dr. Alok Dubey, SAS Officer (Sports). In the letter dated 27.01.2015 (Annexure P/3 in the writ petition), Dr. Alok Dubey stated that Mohd. Shabab Baksh Kureshi and Ku. Sandhya Mahadik were appointed on

29.10.2014 after the interview conducted by the selection committee. On this basis, a service break of three days from 29 to 31 January 2015 was noted, with reappointment from 31.01.2015 considering institutional need. This clearly establishes that the petitioner’s appointment followed a proper selection procedure by a competent authority and was, 3 therefore, not illegal. The petitioner’s service extension had also been approved, allowing her to continue her duties.

#4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner tha the petitioner holds the qualifications of B.A., M.A., PGDCA, B.P.Ed., M.P.Ed., M.Phil in Physical Education, and Ph.D. in Physical Education, which were fully relevant for the post at the time of appointment. She has been continuously serving as Sports Assistant since 29.10.2014 and has therefore completed more than ten years of service, qualifying her for consideration for regularization. She also contended that the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 6326/2023 had rightly directed the regularization of the petitioner’s services, taking into account her long and continuous service, relevant qualifications, and the need for the post. However, the Hon’ble Division Bench, in its judgment dated

25.06.2025 in WA No. 397/2025, set aside the Single Bench’s order, relying solely on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and Vibhuti Shankar Pandey v. State of M.P., reported in (2023) 3 SCC 639, and held that the petitioner’s appointment was illegal, and therefore, not regularizable.

#5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamlesh Verma vs Mayawati & Others, reported in 2013 AIR (SC) 3301 reiterated the grounds for maintainability of a review petition: (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence not previously within the petitioner’s knowledge despite due diligence; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other 4 sufficient reason. She further submits that in view of the judgment in M/s Trimex Sand Pvt. Ltd. & Another vs. Union of India & Others, Civil Appeal No. 4283 of 2019, the review petition deserves allowance, as the respondents herein suppressed material facts and committed fraud on the Court.

#6. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a clear error apparent on the face of the record. The Hon’ble Court overlooked binding precedents such as State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari (2010) 9 SCC 247 and Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand (2018) 8 SCC 238, which held that employees serving continuously for ten years or more without court intervention are entitled to consideration for regularization. The petitioner/respondent No. 1, appointed on 29.10.2014, had completed ten years of service on

29.10.2024 and had rendered ten years, three months, and twenty days of service by 19.02.2025, contrary to the nine years noted in para 15 of the impugned order. Her appointment was by a selection committee, she was fully qualified, and her duties were performed against the sanctioned cadre of Principal Students Activity & Sports Officer as per the recruitment rules for non-faculty posts in NITs. In the absence of regular appointees, her appointment falls under the category of irregular appointment, eligible for regularization under Uma Devi (supra). She would submit that the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, vide Office Memorandum No. 49014/7/2020-Estt. (C) dated 07.10.2020, provided clarifications regarding regularization of qualified workers 5 appointed against sanctioned posts under the Uma Devi (supra) judgment. Additionally, in State of Karnataka vs. M.L. Kesari (03.08.2010), the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that employees who have served voluntarily and continuously for over ten years should be considered for regularization, even if their initial appointment was irregular. The petitioner is fully eligible for regularization under this Office Memorandum. The petitioner submitted all relevant facts, but respondents No. 1 and 2 misled the Hon’ble Court by alleging that the petitioner had not provided details regarding her post and appointment date. The review is warranted due to non-consideration of relevant facts submitted in the writ petition and appeal. Misleading submissions by the respondents, as recorded in paras 7, 8, 9, and 11 of the impugned order, resulted in an incorrect judgment. The petitioner had sought information under RTI regarding the 14 Sports Assistants appointed at NIT Raipur, including advertisement, interview dates, and specialization details. This request was disposed of on 24.07.2025 without providing the documents (Annexure P/2). As per RTI dated 20.05.2025, NIT Raipur had 293 sanctioned non-faculty posts, with 85 regular/permanent employees and 01 on deputation. Advertisements had been issued for 145 posts, leaving 62 sanctioned posts vacant. Presently, only four employees are serving in the Sports Department.

#7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that the petitioner has served the institution for over ten years, three months, and twenty days with uninterrupted service and a clean record, creating a legitimate expectation of regularization. The impugned judgment causes manifest 6 injustice by depriving the petitioner of service benefits despite a decade of dedicated service.

#8. In view of the above, the review petition deserves to be allowed, and the judgment dated 25.06.2025 passed in WA No. 397 of 2025 should be recalled/reviewed.

#9. We have perused the impugned order under review.

#10. It appears that the petitioner by presentation of this review petition seek an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on merits under the garb of the review petition, which is not permissible and tenable in law.

#11. It is well settled that scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and only an error apparent on face of record can be corrected in the said jurisdiction and re-appraisal/re-appreciation cannot be done in exercise of said jurisdiction as that would amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is impermissible in law (Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai1, Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt)2, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others3, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others4, Akhilesh Yavad v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others5 and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others6.)

#12. The grounds raised by review petitioner in this review petition 1 (1987) 1 SCC 61 2 (1995) 1 SCC 170 3 (1996) 10 SCC 174 4 AIR 2000 SC 1650 5 (2013) 2 SCC 1 6 (2017) 4 SCC 692 7 cannot be permitted to be raised in review petition. Even otherwise, there is no error apparent on the face of record in the impugned judgment under review warranting invocation of review jurisdiction.

#13. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan