Dwarika Ram and Others vs The State of Chhattisgarh and Another

Hon''ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J.

Review Petition u/s 114 of C.P.C. 1. The matter is taken up for consideration in the Chamber under provisions of sub-Rule 2 of Rule 90 under Chapter VI of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007. By this petition, the petitioners seeks review of the order dated 11.04.2012 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3351 of 2010 (Dwarika Ram & others v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Others) on the grounds that firstly, the names of the petitioners are registered with the Employment Exchange Office, even then their names were not sponsored for selection and appointment. Secondly, there was no need to implead selected candidates as party respondents as the controversy of appointment on 42 posts of peon was well within the knowledge of the selected candidates as it was mentioned in the order dated 16.03.2011 (Annexure R-P/3) that it was subject to outcome of W.P.(S) No. 3351/2010 and lastly, the respondents have not disclosed the reasons asto why the 42 posts of peon were not advertised in the local newspaper alongwith the advertisement dated 30.11.2010.

On perusal of the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it appears that the review petitioners have not pointed out any manifest error on the record and has further not brought into the notice, any new facts which could not be produced earlier despite diligent efforts made by the petitioners, which changes the order dated 11.04.2012 substantially. In the case on hand, the review petitioner seek review on the ground that it is not necessary to implead the selected candidates as party-respondents as they had knowledge about the pendency of the writ petition, as the appointment order itself was subject to final outcome of the writ petition, being W.P.(S) No. 3351/2010. It is further contended that the 42 posts of Peon were not advertised in the local news paper as no reason has been disclosed by the respondents asto why the posts of peon were not added in the advertisement.

All the issues raised hereinabove, have been considered by this Court and it was held that even if the appointment order indicates that the appointment was subject to final outcome of the writ petition, that does not mean that the persons who would be vitally and substantially affected, should not be arrayed as party as they had right to put forward their cases as they were going to be affected substantially. Thus, the petition was not dismissed only on account of non- joinder of the necessary party. It was further held that the names of the petitioners were not sponsored by the employment exchange, i.e. on merit also.

This Court, after hearing the counsel for the parties, and considering the matter on merits and having considered the case in its entirety, passed the order dated 11.04.2012. This is not the case of the review petitioners that the all the grounds which were pleaded and argued have not been considered while passing the order dated 11.04.2012, sought to be reviewed. It is a clear case wherein the review petitioners are seeking to re-argue the entire matter afresh, again.

It is well settled principle of law that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even in exercise of review jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has not produced any ground for review.

It appears that the petitioner, by presentation of this review petition seeks 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. 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. (See: Meera Bhanjan v. Smt. Nirmal Kumar Choudhary1, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India & Others2, Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa & Others3, Government of T.N. & Others v. M.Ananchu Asari & Others4, and Kerala State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd. and Others5). In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the review petition is dismissed.