The High Court
Case Details
RA-CW-122 122-2018 in CWP-25501-2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB IN TH AT CHANDIGA NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH RA-CW-122-2018 in CWP-25501-2012 Reserved on 20.11.2025 Pronounced on: 29.11.2025 Uploaded on:29.11.2025 Ravi Kant State of Harya f Haryana and others SUS VERSUS .....Petitioner/Applicant licant .....Responden ondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HAR HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Ms. Tamanna Banwala and Ms. Advocates for Mr. Balwinder Sin in RA-CW-122-2018 in CWP- d Ms. Bhoomika Bhardwaj, licant Singh, Advocate for the applicant -25501-2012.
Legal Reasoning
aryana. Mr. Arun Singla, AAG, Haryana HARPREET REET SINGH BRAR, J. 1. The present application is prefe e 1 of s preferred under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of de of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying dated raying for review of judgment dated 14.02.2018 p 018 passed in CWP-25501-2012. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the pleted at the applicant/petitioner completed his ITI certi I certification in the trade of elect tional electrician in 2007 from National Industrial Tra ial Training Institute (NITI), Rewari. to the wari. Subsequently, he applied to the post of Ass f Assistant Lineman with Dakshin igam kshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (her d (hereinafter ‘Nigam’). On 05.07. tioner 05.07.2012, the applicant/petitioner PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.29 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CW-122 122-2018 in CWP-25501-2012 2 appeared in t ed in the interview but was not selec ached t selected. Thereafter, he approached the Secretary cretary, Haryana Staff Selection Com clear n Commission but received no clear response. Con se. Consequently, he approached this C 5501- this Court by means of CWP-25501 2012 which w hich was dismissed vide judgment dat ent dated 14.02.2018. 3. Learned counsel for the applica tioner pplicant contended that the petitioner completed hi ted his course in the year 2007 while ted as while the NITI, Rewari was listed as ‘bogus’ by th by the State government in February gment bruary, 2008. Further, vide judgment dated 14.02.2 14.02.2018, this Court directed the N ces of the Nigam to terminate services of other appoin appointed candidates who acquired m an quired their qualification from an unrecognised gnised institution. However, no steps igam steps have been taken by the Nigam to comply wi ply with this direction. In fact, three em noop hree employees namely Satbir, Anoop and Satish, w tish, who had also acquired their quali ari are r qualification from NITI, Rewari are still working orking with DHBVNL under the stay urt in e stay granted by the High Court in CWP Nos Nos. 2642-2015, 2015, 5145-2015, 2641-2015. Lastly, the the applicant/peti nt/petitioner has earned a fresh qu nised sh qualification from a recognised institute i.e. B e i.e. Babu Jagjiwan Ram (Pvt.), ITI, h, ), ITI, Pataudi in June 2018. As such, he may be a y be allowed to join service by draw Lift y drawing a reference to Orissa Lift Irrigation C n Corporation Ltd. vs. Rabi Sank (4) Sankar Patro and others 2017 (4) SCT 683. 4. Learned counsel for non-applic d that applicant/respondents submitted that there is no s no occasion for review of judgme ll the dgment dated 14.02.2018 as all the t relevant information had been considere info nsidered therein. At the e of time of PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.29 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CW-122 122-2018 in CWP-25501-2012 3 consideration eration for recruitment in the year f the year 2008, the credentials of the applicant/peti nt/petitioner included certification fro not a on from NITI, Rewari, which is not a recognised in ised institution. As such, he was not nd the s not eligible for recruitment and the status of em of employment of Satbir, Anoop an e any op and Satish would not have any impact on thi on this fact. Further, subsequently ac e year ntly acquired qualification in the year 2018 would a ould also not make him eligible retros retrospectively. 5. Having heard learned counsel fo rusing nsel for the parties and after perusing the record of ord of the case, it transpires that is no er that t is not the case of the petitioner that the Court wa urt was deprived of some relevant info cation nt information during the adjudication process. The The matter of similarly situated e p and ated employees- Satbir, Anoop and Satish already already stands settled as the writ petiti CWP t petitions preferred by them i.e. CWP Nos. 2642-20 2015, 5145-2015 and 2641-2015 gment 2015 were dismissed vide judgment dated 29.11.2 9.11.2025. Since the applicant/petitio ibility petitioner did not satisfy the eligibility criterion at th n at the time of recruitment, no legal our to legal right is accrued in his favour to demand cons d consideration. Clearly, there is no ap dated s no apparent error in judgment dated 14.02.2018 o 018 owing to misconception of fact tter of f fact or law. As far as the matter of weeding out g out unqualified employees in te ent is in terms of the said judgment is concerned, th ned, the same shall not come under the der the purview of review. 6. A two-Judge bench of the Ho erry he Hon’ble Supreme Court in Perry Kansagra vs. a vs. Smriti Madan Kansagra laid d erning laid down the parameters concerning scope of revi f review under Order 47 Rule 1. Spea Lalit, . Speaking through Justice U.U. Lalit, the following lowing was observed: PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.29 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CW-122 122-2018 in CWP-25501-2012 4 . As regards the first issue, relying Inderchand Jain (dead) through L s., (2009) 14 SCC 663, Ajit Kuma hers, 1999(4) S.C.T. 779 : (1999) 9 S hers v. Sumitri Devi and others, 19 SCC 715, it was submitted by the view jurisdiction was not warranted In Inderchand Jain it was obse lying on the decisions of this Court ourt gh Lrs. v. Motilal (dead) through ugh and umar Rath v. State of Orissa and 9) 9 SCC 596 and Parsion Devi and and s, 1997(4) RCR (Civil) 458 : (1997) 997) e of the appellant that the exercise of nted at all. are observed in paras 10, 11 and 33 are “15. A in Inde Lrs., ( others, others 8 SCC review 15.1. as und under:- "10. It is beyond any doubt or does not sit in appeal over its matter is impermissible in law. the general rule that once pronounced, it should not be exercise of inherent jurisdictio any order. t or dispute that the review court ourt its own order. A rehearing of the f the n to law. It constitutes an exception to is signed or or once a t be altered. It is also trite that that ing iction is not invoked for reviewing judgment 11. Review is not appeal in disg of India, 2000(3) RCR (Civil) Court held: (SCC p. 251, para 5 "56. It follows, therefore, exercised for correction o a view. Such powers can the statute dealing with th cannot be treated like an a disguise. In Lily Thomas v. Union nion this ivil) 252 : (2000) 6 SCC 224 this ara 56) n be ore, that the power of review can be itute ion of a mistake but not to substitute can be exercised within the limits of ts of view th the exercise of power. The review an appeal in disguise." *** *** *** tion htly noticed the review jurisdiction 33. The High Court had rightly er: of the court, which is as under: ject-exercise of power of review, as , as "The law on the subject igh pex Court and various other High propounded by the Apex arised as hereunder: Courts may be summarise ceedings are not by way of appeal peal (i) Review proceed and e strictly confined to the scope and and have to be str 47, Rule 1 CPC. ambit of Order 47 eview may be exercised when some ome (ii) Power of review or apparent on the fact of record is rd is mistake or error ap t be ror on the face of record must be found. But error o which must strike one on mere ere such an error wh record and would not require any any looking at the reco ints rocess of reasoning on the points long-drawn proces ay conceivably be two opinions. where there may co review may not be exercised on the the (iii) Power of revie on the decision was erroneous on ground that the merits. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.29 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CW-122 122-2018 in CWP-25501-2012 5 eview can also be exercised for any any on which is wide enough to include lude even n of fact or law by a court or even (iv) Power of review sufficient reason w a misconception of an advocate. tion for review may be necessitated ated (v) An application riae voking the doctrine actus curiae by way of invoki bit." neminem gravabit." the les of law enumerated by it, in the In our opinion, the principles o en applied." cts of this case, have wrongly been a facts o 15.2. In Ajit Kumar Rath, it was obse "29. In review proceedings, th principles laid down above w unjustified and exhibits a tend which the controversy had bee to say, constrained section 22(3)(f) of 1985............" observed:- the s, the Tribunal deviated from the olly e which, we must say, is wholly tendency to rewrite a judgment by t by are been finally decided. This, we are nder the scope of review under ot is not Act, Administrative Tribunals Act, the Ad Similarly, in Parsion Devi the d as the principles were summarized as 15.3. der: under: "9. Under Order 47, Rule 1 CP review inter alia if there is a m the face of the record. An error has to be detected by a proces said to be an error apparen justifying the court to exercis Order 47, Rule 1 CPC. In exer Order 47, Rule 1 CPC it is not decision to be "reheard and co must be remembered has a li allowed to be "an appeal in disg n to CPC a judgment may be open to a mistake or an error apparent on t on and error which is not self-evident and y be ocess of reasoning, can hardly be arent on the face of the record cord ercise its power of review under nder nder exercise of the jurisdiction under not permissible for an erroneous eous d corrected". A review petition, it n, it t be a limited purpose and cannot be disguise". 7. In view of the discussion above d any above, this Court does not find any self-evident ident error in the judgment dated 1 equire ated 14.02.2008 that would require intervention b ntion by means of review. The applica efit of pplicant/petitioner can seek benefit of the qualificat lification acquired from a recognised in any nised institute in the year 2018 in any future service service opportunities but not retrospec resent rospectively. Accordingly, the present PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.29 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CW-122 122-2018 in CWP-25501-2012 6 review applic application is dismissed. 8. Pending miscellaneous applicat stands plication(s), if any, shall also stands
Decision
ed of. disposed of. November P.C 29, 2025 RAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/r Whether Reportable king/reasoned. : Yes/No Yes/No ortable. : PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.29 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document