Neelam vs The District & Sessions Judge and Others

Veerender Singh Siradhana, J.

In I.A. No. 636 of 2013:

For the reasons detailed out in the application for condonation of delay, the delay of seven days in preferring the review petition is hereby condoned. Consequently, the misc. application for condonation of delay is allowed.

In Review Petition:

In the instant review petition, the review/writ petitioner has prayed for review of the order dated 31st of July, 2013 passed by this Court dismissing Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1645 of 2012 against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 24th September, 2012.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the original petitioner (Late Shri Ravindra Kumar Garg) was appointed as Stenographer on 20th December, 1985; without issuance of any advertisement and contrary to the procedure prescribed under the relevant Recruitment Rules. The appointment was made only for a period of three months purely on temporary basis and with a further stipulation to qualify the competitive examination in accordance with the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts (Ministerial Staff) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules of 1958, for short). Be that as it may, the original petitioner i.e. Late Shri Ravindra Kumar Garg, was continued in service and his services were regularized vide order dated 3rd January, 1998. However, the order of regularization of service dated 3rd January, 1998, was withdrawn on 30 October, 2003; including all the benefits extended as a consequence of regularization in view of the fact that Late Shri Ravindra Kumar Garg failed to qualify the proficiency test/competitive examination in the year 1990 and 1992. The learned Single Judge on a challenge to the impugned order dated 30th October, 2003 while dismissing the writ application, for the original petitioner having failed to pass the required test and further, the appointment accorded in his favour was contrary to the mandate of law and recruitment rules, interfered with the order only to the extent of recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,10,689/-.

On an intra-court appeal, this Court upheld the view of the learned Single Judge after a detailed scrutiny and hearing of the matter.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, in the instant review petition, has reiterated the facts and the grounds as were raised during the course of hearing of the special appeal, dismissed vide order dated 31st July, 2013, of which review is prayed for. The review petitioner in order to reinforce the submissions made earlier has also placed on record some additional documents, obtained under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned counsel has again reiterated the fact that the Rules of 1958 had already been repealed and the Rules of 1988 were enforced and further, in the year 2000, the condition contained in the conditions stipulated in the first appointment order, made under the Rules of 1958 to qualify the speed test was waived and hence, the regularization could not be faulted. On the basis of the documents annexed with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code enclosing the Gratuity and Pension Payment Order, an effort is made to reinforce the submissions that the original petitioner (Late Shri Ravindra Kumar Garg) was treated as Stenographer even after passing of the impugned order dated 30th October, 2003.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after a perusal of the memo of the review petition, it is evident that the petitioner is seeking rehearing of the issues, referring to the pleaded facts and pleading of the writ application as well as the special appeal, which have already been considered and decided vide order dated 31st July, 2013. The scope of review is very limited and is permitted only in the event of an error apparent on the face of record.

The moot question in the instant case at hand is whether in the facts of the case, the application for review is justified or not. By a catena of judgments, the Hon''ble Apex Court of the land has held time and again that the review is permissible only in the event of error apparent on the face of record. In the case of Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi, , at page 171: the Hon''ble Supreme Court held thus:

"8. It is well-settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that 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: Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan. For instance, if the attention of the Court is not drawn to a material statutory provision during the original hearing, the Court will review its judgment: G.L. Gupta v. D.N. Mehta. The Court may also reopen its judgment if a manifest wrong has been done and it is necessary to pass an order to do full and effective justice: O.N. Mohindroo v. Distt. Judge, Delhi. Power to review its judgments has been conferred on the Supreme Court by Article 137 of the Constitution, and that power is subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or the rules made under Article 145. In a civil proceeding, an application for review is entertained only on a ground mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and in a criminal proceeding on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record (Order 40 Rule 1, Supreme Court Rules, 1966). But whatever the nature of the proceeding, it is beyond dispute that 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 v. Sheikh Habib."

In the facts and circumstances herein above, we do not find any error apparent on the face of record and therefore, the review petition preferred on behalf of the petitioner is devoid of any substance and merits rejection. Ordered accordingly.

In the result, the review petition is hereby dismissed. In view of disposal of review petition, the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC is closed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.