AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J
This case has been heard through video conferencing.
By means of the above writ petition (MCC No.69 of 2020), the validity of the selection process, which was undertaken in pursuant to the advertisement dated 04.08.2017, was challenged by the petitioner on various grounds, including that of bias at the hands of Selection Committee. This writ petition was allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 09.01.2020. Now a review application has been filed by respondent no.8/applicant for reviewing the judgment and order dated 09.01.2020.
One of the grounds taken by the applicant in review petition is that the ground of bias does not apply in case of the review petitioner (respondent no.8) as unlike others, Shri Deepak Chand was never a student of Dr. Shekhar Joshi. However, it is an admitted fact that this fact was never stated in the counter affidavit filed by the private respondents in the writ petition and is being stated here for the first time, although it was the main ground for challenge in the writ petition.
In Sajjan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 845, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a party is not entitled to seek review of a judgment merely for the purpose of a re-hearing and a fresh decision of the case.
In Sow Chandra Kante and another vs. Sheikh Habib, (1975) 1 SCC 674, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that a review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to. It is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier, by judicial fallibility. A mere repetition, through different counsel, of old and over-ruled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually covered ground or minor mistakes of inconsequential import are obviously insufficient.
Under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, grounds for review are very limited and such grounds are not available with the applicant. There is apparently no error apparent on the face of record, which may call for any interference in the review proceedings.
Moreover, this Court has also been informed by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Shri C.D. Bahuguna that against the order of the Division Bench dated 09.01.2020, an SLP No.7228 of 2020 was filed by one Rashmi Nautiyal, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 13.07.2020 and another SLP being SLP No.5123 of 2020 filed by respondent no.7 herein is still pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Under these circumstances, we do not think that it is an appropriate case where an interference under a review petition be made.
Consequently, the review application is dismissed.