Suvarna R. vs High Court of Karnataka

H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.—These review petitions are filed seeking review of the common order dated 4-9-2013 insofar as it relates to W.P. Nos. 32380 and 32381 of 2013 and for other reliefs. Petitioners are the unsuccessful candidates in the main examination conducted by the respondents for recruitment of Civil Judges. Petitioners and other unsuccessful candidates approached this Court in W.P. Nos. 32380 and 32381 of 2013 and connected matters. By a common order dated 4-9-2013 all the writ petitions came to be dismissed. Some of the unsuccessful writ petitioners have filed writ appeals and they are pending adjudication.

This Court in its order dated 4-9-2013, recording the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for respondents observed as under:

"9. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. D.M. Nanjunda Reddy for respondent submits that they will show the answer scripts to the Advocates for petitioners and not to the petitioners. Some of the petitioners are willing and some of the petitioners are not willing to the proposal made by the Senior Counsel for respondent. Such of the petitioners who are willing may ask their Advocates to approach the respondent-Registrar General of High Court and in that event the answer scripts of the petitioners be shown to their respective Advocates".

On the basis of above observation petitioners contend, that their Advocate had seen the answer scripts of the petitioners and found certain anomalies. From these anomalies it is contended that they have discovered fresh evidence relating to lack of fairness, justness and marks are allotted in random without following any methodology. In one answer script initially 25 marks were allotted and subsequently the same was rounded off and has been replaced by 15 marks. There was no objective valuation of the answer scripts, there was no uniformity in the valuation and the same was arbitrary etc. On these observations of learned Advocate for the petitioners the present review petitions are filed seeking to review the common order dated 4-9-2013 insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

The Supreme Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and Others, held as under:

"15. 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 Civil Procedure Code, 1908. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction.

Summary of the principles

Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:

(A) 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" has been interpreted in AIR 1922 112 (Privy Council) and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and Another Vs. The Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and Others, , 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 (UOI) Vs. Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. and Others, .

(B) 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".

In the instant case this Court in its order dated 4-9-2013 held that the Karnataka Judicial Service (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 2011 do not provide for revaluation of the answer scripts. It is further held that as a matter of right the petitioners are not entitled to seek revaluation of their answer scripts. This finding, insofar as the petitioners are concerned, had become final. Insofar as the other writ petitioners are concerned, the same is subject-matter of writ appeals. In the circumstances the observation of the Advocate on examination of the answer scripts of the petitioners will not amount to collection of new evidence which will alter the findings already given in the order dated 4-9-2013. Even otherwise the sum and substance of prayer of petitioners is seeking revaluation of their answer scripts. Therefore this is not a fit case for reviewing the order dated 4-9-2013. Accordingly, the review petitions are hereby dismissed.