Ghisa Ram Sharma vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Veerender Singh Siradhana, J.—The petitioner/appellant (for short ''the petitioner'') has preferred the above-noted review petition with a prayer for review of the judgment and order dated 2nd August, 2013 passed D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5641/2012.

Briefly, the essential material facts necessary for the adjudication of the controversy are that the petitioner being an employee of an aided school, was appointed on a sanctioned aided post and continued to work until the institute unilaterally declined to withdraw the grant-in-aid with effect from 1st April, 2008, whereas the State Government withdrew/closed the grant-in-aid with effect from 1st March, 2012 and therefore, the petitioner ought to have been treated as an employee working against the aided post till 1st March, 2012 and thus, he was entitled to be absorbed under the Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Services Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules of 2010'', for short). Further, the petitioner having learnt about the refusal of the grant-in-aid by the institute, employing him, with effect from 1st April, 2008 though was allowed by the State Government; filed S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 11725 of 2010 (Sobhagya Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) whereupon the respondents were directed to consider the representation of the petitioner for absorption under the Rules of 2010 vide order dated 2nd November, 2011. However, the representation was declined vide order dated 19 January, 2012 and therefore, preferred D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5641 of 2012 (Ghisa Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided by this Court vide judgment and order dated 2 August, 2013 of which review is being sought.

The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner was appointed against a sanctioned aided post in the institute though the institute unilaterally denied to accept the grant-in-aid with effect from 31st March, 2008 whereas the State Government withdrew the grant-in-aid with effect from 1st March, 2012, hence, the petitioner ought to have been treated to be working against the sanctioned aided post and therefore, was entitled to the benefits of the Rules of 2010 for absorption and this fact is also fortified in view of the representation made by the petitioner in compliance of the directions issued on the writ application preferred by the petitioner before the learned Single Judge. Thus, an error is apparent on the face of record and therefore, the judgment and order needs to be reviewed qua the petitioner for the purpose of rehearing and decision afresh.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the materials available on record in the backdrop of the factual matrix.

From a bare perusal of the memo of the review petition, arguments advanced and the relief clause, it is evident that the learned counsel for the petitioner is seeking rehearing of the issues referring to the pleaded facts and pleadings of the writ application, which have already been considered and decided vide judgment and order dated 2nd August, 2013. Further, para 16 of the judgment and order dated 2nd August, 2013 would further fortify the fact that the issue now raised in the review petition on behalf of the petitioner was specifically dealt with, which reads thus:--

"16. Mr. Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5641/2012 (Ghisa Ram Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.) adopting the submissions made by the counsel preceding him, submitted that the initial appointment of the petitioner, on the post of Lab Assistant was against the sanctioned aided post, but the institute declined to accept grant-in-aid w.e.f. 01.04.2008, though the State Government did not stop the grant-in-aid of the institution and therefore, the petitioner could not be faulted for the action of the institution of the petitioner, declining to avail the facility of grant-in-aid. The learned counsel pointed out the instance of an employee of Bal Bharati Kothari School, Sikar, which received grant-in-aid upto 2010, and made an attempt to equate his case to that of the employee of Bal Bharati Kothari School, Sikar, in support of his claim, but the fact remains that the institution of the petitioner did not avail of the grant-in-aid w.e.f. 01.04.2008."

This Court taking note of the relevant provisions of the Scheme and the procedures for grant-in-aid under the Act of 1989 and the Rules of 1993, concluded that the grant-in-aid to a Non-Government Aided Educational Institution can be claimed only subject to fulfillment of certain conditions and ensuring the compliance of the procedure as per the Rules of 1993. The institution, employing the petitioner, was not receiving the grant-in-aid, which is an admitted fact. Further, the existence of two set of posts i.e. aided sanctioned post and non-aided sanctioned post not being in dispute, the claim of the petitioner cannot be sustained and a finding with reference to grant-in-aid has been specifically recorded under paragraph 48 of the judgment and order dated 2nd August, 2013, which reads thus:--

"48. Keeping in view the Scheme of the Act & Rules, there cannot be any doubt that grant-in-aid is available to educational institutions on submission of application in the prescribed form and fulfillment of conditions as stipulated under the provisions of Act of 1989 and Rules of 1993 and cannot be claimed as a matter of right."

Moreover, the policy decision has been taken in the backdrop of the fact that the employees, who are working on aided sanctioned post, a major part of their remuneration is provided by the State and therefore, has restricted the entry to the rural service under the Rules of 2010, keeping in view the financial burden.

The question in the instant case at hand is whether in the facts of the case, the application for review is justified or not. By a catena of judgments, the Hon''ble Apex Court of the land has held time and again that the review is permissible only in the event of error apparent on the face of record. In the case of Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi, : the Hon''ble Supreme Court held thus:

"8. It is well-settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so: Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan. For instance, if the attention of the Court is not drawn to a material statutory provision during the original hearing, the Court will review its judgment: G.L. Gupta v. D.N. Mehta. The Court may also reopen its judgment if a manifest wrong has been done and it is necessary to pass an order to do full and effective justice: O.N. Mohindroo v. Distt. Judge, Delhi. Power to review its judgments has been conferred on the Supreme Court by Article 137 of the Constitution, and that power is subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or the rules made under Article 145. In a civil proceeding, an application for review is entertained only on a ground mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and in a criminal proceeding on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record (Order 40 Rule 1, Supreme Court Rules, 1966). But whatever the nature of the proceeding, it is beyond dispute that a review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except "where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility": Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib."

In the facts and circumstances herein above, we do not find any error apparent on the face of record and therefore, the review petition preferred on behalf of the petitioner is devoid of any substance and merits rejection. Ordered accordingly.

In the result, the review petition is hereby dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.