AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kh. Nobin Singh, J
[1] Heard Shri M. Rarry, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners and Shri A. Bimol, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the proforma private respondent and Smt. Th. Sobhana, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents.
[2] The instant review petition has been filed against this Court's order dated 14-09-2016 by the review petitioners who were the private respondents in writ petition being WP(C) No. 83 of 2015.
[3.1] The facts and circumstances which have led to the filing of the present review petition, are that in the writ petition, it has been inert-alia contended by the principal respondent that he was initially appointed as the Ranger with effect from 03-05-1989 and while serving in that capacity, he obtained a certificate issued by the Wildlife Institute of India for completing Post Graduate Diploma in Wild Life Management. As per the amended provisions of the Manipur Forest Service Rules, 2010, he became eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of MFS Grade-II, the vacancies of which was 10 (ten) in number. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Manipur made a requisition dated 30-07-2013 for appointment of eligible candidates on promotion to the post of MFS Grade-II. A meeting of the DPC, associated with the Manipur Public Service Commission, was held on 31-10-2013 whereby the review petitioners and some other were recommended and accordingly, they were appointed to the said ten posts of MFS Grade-II. Being aggrieved by the proceedings of the DPC, the principal respondent approached this court by way of a writ petition being WP(C) No.83 of 2015.
[3.2] The review petitioners and some other filed a joint affidavit-in-opposition dated 08-10-2015 before this Court wherein it has been stated that the principal respondent admitted himself that he had been and is working as the Ranger/ Forest Range Officer. Therefore, the principal respondent was not eligible at all to undergo the Post Graduate Diploma Course as is evident from the prospectus and the said certificate obtained by him by means of fraud, will not make him entitled to be considered for promotion. The review petitioners are eligible in terms of the provisions of the Manipur Forest Service Rules, 2013 which were in operation at the time when the DPC was held on 31-10-2013.
[4] On 14-09-2016 when the said writ petition came up for consideration, the learned counsels appearing for the respondents submitted that the Government order dated 02-12-2013 by which the review petitioners were appointed as the MFS Grade-II, had been quashed and set aside by this Court in another proceeding and that the authorities concerned had been directed to hold a review DPC. In view of the said submission, this Court vide its order dated 14-09-2016 disposed of the writ petition and the operative portion of the order is as under:
"Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of with the direction that a Review DPC be held by the respondents within a period of 2 (two) months from today for appointment of Forest Range Officers against 10 vacant posts of Manipur Forest Services in accordance with the relevant rules and in the review DPC, all the eligible persons including the writ petitioner shall be considered by the respondents."
[5] The instant review petition has been filed by the review petitioners contending that on perusal of the order dated 14-09-2016, a mistake and error apparent on the face of record was discovered and moreover, although the principal respondent was ineligible for consideration for promotion to the post of MFS Grade-II, he had succeeded in obtaining a relief of declaring himself eligible for consideration in the review DPC.
[6] The power of review ought to be ordinarily conferred by the statute. So far as the Hon'ble Supreme Court is concerned, Article 137 of the Constitution of India confers power of review upon it. But there is no such provision in respect of the High Courts. The issue regarding the power of review that can be exercised by the High Court, has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that the High Court, under Article 226, has an inherent power, apart from statutory conditions, which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. By way of an illustration, a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati & ors., (2013) 8 SCC 320 may be referred to wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the scope of review jurisdiction in the light of Article 137 of the Constitution; Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC and Part VIII Order 40 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 and after analyzing its earlier decisions, summarized the principles in para 20, 20.1 and 20.2 which read as under:
"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;
(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 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius 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.
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 error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.
(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 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."
[7] In the present case, it may be noted that this Court has not decided the issue on merits. The writ petition has been disposed on only in terms of the submission made by the learned counsels appearing for the respondents that the proceedings of the DPC and the appointment order have already been quashed and set aside by this Court, in another writ petition, with the direction that a review DPC be held by the State respondents. The review petitioners appear to have a grievance in respect of the expression "including the writ petitioner" made in the order. The said expression shall not be read in isolation. The sentence as a whole is to be read to understand the meaning of the order and moreover, the expression "including the writ petitioner" is qualified by the expressions "in accordance with law" and "considered by the respondents". The order that the writ petitioner shall be considered along with the eligible persons, does not mean that the writ petitioner shall be recommended and appointed by the State respondents and it does mean only that he shall be considered in accordance with law. One aspect to be noted, is that the review petition is being filed by the review petitioners who were the private respondents in the writ petition and not by the State respondents who have been directed to hold the review DPC and they appear to have no grievance at all in considering the eligible persons including the writ petitioner in accordance with law. It is for the DPC to consider them on merit in accordance with law. The grievance of the review petitioners appears to be premature and it may arise only after the DPC being held and that too, if not held in accordance with law. There is no error in the order dated 14-09-2016 apparent on the face of record and as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred to hereinabove, it is well settled that the error apparent on the face of record should not be the one which has to be fished out and searched. The order that the principal respondent shall be considered along with the eligible persons in accordance with law, cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of record. It is not a matter of fact but a matter of interpretation and therefore, if the review petitioners are aggrieved by the said order dated 14-09-2016, it is open to them to prefer appeal before the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievances.
[8] In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the review petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.