AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajesh Rai K, J
This Review Petition emanates from the order dated 25.10.2023 passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 17670/2023 (S-KSAT), whereby this Hon'ble Court was pleased to Allow the Writ Petition in part and set aside the order passed by Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (in short KSAT) dated 02.08.2023 thereby, giving effect to Transfer Notification from 09.11.2023 insofar as review petitioner and respondent No.3 are concerned.
Being aggrieved by the same, the review petitioner i.e., respondent No.3 in W.P.No.17670/2023 is before this Court.
Sri S.P.Kulkarni, learned Senior counsel for the review petitioner would vehemently contend that the order in W.P.No.17670/2023 is passed in derogation of Principles of natural justice and also in violation of principles enunciated under audi alteram partem. He also adumbrated the contention that the respondent No.3 herein is ineligible to hold the post in which the Review Petitioner is currently working as per the C & R Rules, specified to the Department of Food, Civil supplies and Consumer Affairs Vide Annexure-C to the Writ Petition,
Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 vis-à-vis petitioner in W.P.No.17670/2023, banks on paragraph Nos.16 and 27 of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer (1) and another reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1406, where in it held as under:
"16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that:—
(i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.
(ii) 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.
(iii) An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review.
(iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected.”
(v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.”
(vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.
(vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.
(viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.
In view of the above stated position, we are of the opinion that the well-considered judgment sought to be reviewed does not fall within the scope and ambit of Review. The learned Counsels for the Review Petitioners have failed to make out any mistake or error apparent on the face of record in the impugned judgment, and have failed to bring the case within the parameters laid down by this Court in various decision for reviewing the impugned judgment. Since we are not inclined to entertain these Review Petitions, we do not propose to deal with the other submissions made by the learned Counsels for the parties on merits.";
relying the above judgement he would further vehemently contends to falter the contentions raised by the review petitioner herein and also submits that, both review petitioner and respondent No.3 is in-eligible to hold the post to which the present challenge lies and prays for dismissal.
Learned AGA for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 supports the order of this Court and prays for dismissal of this Review Petition.
Heard learned Senior counsel for the review petitioner, learned AGA and learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 and perused the pleadings and records.
Pursuant to careful and scrupulous consideration of the contentions raised by both the rival parties, we are of the considered view that, the contention raised by the review petitioner holds water, as it is well-settled norm under the principles of natural justice that a fair opportunity has to be extended to the parties to the lis to present their case before the Court prudently. Hence, it is in this background and to allow the caveator respondent No.3 in W.P.No.17670/2023 qua review petitioner to urge his contention in respect of the eligibility criterion of himself and respondent No.3 to hold the said post is concerned, we find that interference in exercise of review jurisdiction is necessitated.
For the aforementioned reasons, the order dated 25.10.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.17670/2023 (S-KSAT) is hereby recalled. W.P.No.17670/2023 is restored back to file. In the result, the review petition is allowed.
In view of the disposal of review petition, pending I.A, if any, does not survive for consideration as such is accordingly disposed.
Registry is directed to list W.P.No.17670/2023 on 17.11.2023 for Preliminary Hearing - B Group.