KARNATAKA v. (BY SMT SARITHA KULKARNI. ., HCGP)

SMT. BHAGYASHRI Y NUKAPURA W/O DR. DINAKAR M.V., AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, SENIOR SUPERVISOR, O/O CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIJAYANAGAR, 2ND STAGE, MYSORE - 57 0 017, R/AT NO.486, 4TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS, MARUTHI TEMPLE STREET, BEHIND KAMAKSHI HOSPITAL, T.K. LAYOUT, SARASWATHI PURAM, MYSORE - 570 017. (BY SRI. SRIKANTH M P.,ADVOCATE) AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA BANGALORE 560001

THE DIRECTOR WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONER - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:40230-DB RP No. 422 of 2024 BANGALORE 560001

THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER WOMEN AND CHILD DEVLEOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIJAYANAGAR,2ND STAGE MYSURU RURAL MYSURU 570017 (BY SMT SARITHA KULKARNI. ., HCGP) …RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 02.08.2024 PASSED ON WRIT PETITION NO. 17311/2021 (S- KSAT) AND RESTORE THE WRIT PETITION ON FILE, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) The present review petition is filed to review the order dated 2.8.2024 passed by this Court in WP.No.17311/2021.

2. The relevant fact situation leading to the present petition is that the petitioner was the applicant before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore1 Application No.1121-23/2021 contending, inter alia, that she had joined the government service as a Supervisor on 6.2.2004 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’ - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:40230-DB RP No. 422 of 2024 and was promoted as a Senior Supervisor on 13.3.2020. That although she was promoted as a Senior Supervisor, she was required to do the work of Supervisor also. Hence, she approached the Tribunal seeking for various reliefs as has been noticed in the order under review. The Tribunal by its order dated 11.8.2021 has recorded a finding that the grounds urged by the petitioner are nothing but an act of indirectly refusing to carry out the instructions issued by the respondents and that in addition to the work of Senior Supervisor, the petitioner as well as other Senior Supervisors, were entrusted the other work also. Hence, having regard to the job chart of the petitioner requiring her to carry out the work of Senior Supervisor as well as the work entrusted by higher officers, the Tribunal dismissed the application. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred WP.No.17311/2021. This Court, vide order dated 2.8.2024 noticed the case of the petitioner as well as the contentions put forth by her before the Tribunal and has held that the petitioner is avoiding to do certain kinds of work. This Court by its order dated 2.8.2024 has in detail considered the various contentions put forth on behalf of the petitioner and held that the order of - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:40230-DB RP No. 422 of 2024 the Tribunal was just and proper. Being aggrieved, the present review petition is filed.

3. Heard the submissions of learned Counsel Sri M.P.Srikanth for the review petitioner and learned HCGP Smt Saritha Kulkarni for the respondent – State.

In the present review petition, the petitioner is attempting to practically re-agitate all the grounds that were urged in the Writ Petition.

The scope of review is as prerscribed under Order LXVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19082. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma V. Mayawati & Ors.,3 while considering the scope of a review petition has held as follows: “20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:

20.1. When the review will be maintainable: (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; 2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’ 3 (2013) 8 SCC 320 - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:40230-DB RP No. 422 of 2024 (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words “any other sufficient reason” have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki [(1921-22) 49 IA 144 : (1922) 16 LW 37 : AIR 1922 PC 112] and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius [AIR 1954 SC 526 : (1955) 1 SCR 520] to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule”. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. [(2013) 8 SCC 337 : JT (2013) 8 SC 275]

20.2. When the review will not be maintainable: (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material the order, error, manifest on undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. face of (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:40230-DB RP No. 422 of 2024 cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.” (emphasis supplied)

Although the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has not been entrusted with the work of Senior Supervisor and has not been paid the arrears of salary, learned HCGP files a memo placing on record the letter dated 23.09.2024, issued by the Deputy Director of Women and Child Development, State of Karnataka addressed to the Child Development Project Officer to process the payment of the Petitioner. Further, it is relevant to note that both the Tribunal and this Court has already adjudicated upon the contentions of the Petitioner that she has not been entrusted with the work of the Senior Supervisor although having been promoted to the said post. It is further relevant to note that the said post of Senior Supervisor to which the petitioner has been promoted is an upgraded post.

The Tribunal and this Court already having considered the merits of the case of the Petitioner, the question - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:40230-DB RP No. 422 of 2024 of once again examining the merits of the case of the Petitioner in the present review petition does not arise.