Dr. Narayan Prasad Bhattarai vs Gurukul Kangdi Vishwavidyalaya & Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

This application is filed seeking review of the order passed by us in WPSB No. 586 of 2018 dated 08.03.2019 whereby we had, on the basis of the submission of the respondent-University, set-aside the appointment of the 4th respondent, as an Assistant Professor (Ved), on the ground that he did not pass the NEET, and he did not have a Ph.D. in terms of the 2009 Regulations. We had also noted that a Division Bench of this Court had earlier, in its order in WPSB No. 507 of 2017 dated 01.11.2017, noted that the 4th respondent did not pass his NEET examination and he did not possess Ph.D. in terms of the 2009 Regulations.

Though notice in the writ petition was served on the 4th respondent, he neither chose to appear before this Court either in person or through counsel. He also did not file his counter affidavit in the writ petition. The writ petition was, therefore, disposed of on the submissions put forth on behalf of the respondent-University, and the earlier order of the Division Bench of this Court in WPSB No. 507 of 2017, dated 01.11.2017 that the 4th respondent did not possess the prescribed qualifications.

An application seeking review is now filed by Sri Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for the 4th respondent, contending that the 4th respondent possessed the qualifications required to hold the post of Assistant Professor (Ved); and the respondent-University had erroneously put forth submission to the contrary.

In review proceedings the contentions, urged on merits, are, ordinarily, not examined as these are all matters within the purview of an appellate Court. There are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a Court of Appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with the appellate power which may enable an Appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the Subordinate Court. [Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma and others : AIR 1979 SC 1047; Shivdeo Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and other : AIR 1963 SC 1909; Smt. Meera Bhanja vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury : AIR 1995 SC 455]. Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal, and should be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. (Smt. Meera Bhanja vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury : AIR 1995 SC 455).

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. [Sajjan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan : AIR 1965 SC 845; M/s Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi : (1980) 2 SCC 167]. 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 & another vs. Sheikh Habib : (1975) 1 SCC 674; M/s Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi : (1980) 2 SCC 167].

It is only if the order under review suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record would interference be justified in review proceedings. Despite notice in the writ petition having been served on him, the review applicant (the fourth respondent in the writ petition) neither chose to enter appearance through counsel, nor to file a counter affidavit. It is for the first time, in the present review proceedings, has he entered appearance through counsel, which is only after the writ petition was finally disposed of. It is only if the Court has committed an error of law, on the basis of the material on record, would the order passed in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 586 of 2018 necessitate review. Since the submission now put forth by Sri Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for the 4th respondent, were not placed before this Court when the writ petition was finally heard, and the 4th respondent chose not even to enter appearance through counsel or to file his counter affidavit, the order under review cannot be said to suffer from an error apparent warranting its review.

The review application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.