Gujarat High Court
District Primary Education Officer vs State Of Gujarat on 7 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1382/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 08/08/2025
Pronounced On : 07/11/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR REVIEW) NO. 1382 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7862 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DISTRICT PRIMARY EDUCATION OFFICER
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.JAYRAJSINH CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE WITH MR.UM SHASTRI(830) for
the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. DEVANSHIBA RANA, AGP for the Opponent(s) Nos.1,2
MR.MUNJAL BHATT, ADVOCATE WITH MS, SHAILEE S JOSHI(11582) for
the Opponent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms.Devanshiba Rana, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr.Munjal Bhatt, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule for the Respondent No.3.
2. The review petition has been filed by the District Primary Education Officer, the Respondent No.3 in Special Page 1 of 18 Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 21:31:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1382/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined Civil Application No. 7862 of 2011. By a detailed judgment and order dated 09.05.2025, this Court had allowed the writ petition wherein inter alia it was observed as under :-
"9. From the perusal of the orders dated 30.11.2011, 08.02.2012, 05.03.2012, 27.07.2016, 16.09.2016, 27.09.2016 and 20.03.2019, it is clear that for the last 14 years, in spite of the specific orders of this Court, the Respondent no.3 has neither complied with such directions nor has argued the matter on merits. Today also, the Respondent no.3 is not present in the Court through advocate. In the meanwhile, the Petitioner who had filed the instant petition in the year 2011 would have superannuated in the year 2022. The narration of the aforesaid events as encapsulated in great detail by the preceding orders of this Court, portrays a shocking and harrowing sequence of inaction and lack of empathy, which, as recorded in the order dated 16.09.2016 (Coram: Hon'ble Smt. Justice Abhilasha Kumari) "in the view of this Court, this conduct does not behove the Respondents, who hold responsible positions".
3. The present Review Application is therefore, nothing but an attempt to argue the writ petition on merits and avail of one more opportunity, which the Respondents, who at the relevant stage had repeatedly declined to argue the matter on merits or follow the simple directions of this Court but now, having been saddled with exemplary costs have chosen to wake up from their slumber, not unlike Rip Van Winkle.
4. Be that as it may, the main plank of arguments of the instant Review Application are as under:- Page 2 of 18 Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 21:31:43 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1382/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined 4.1 The original petitioner was initially appointed as a Primary Teacher in the year 1987 under the competent educational authority. Subsequently, in view of administrative exigencies, he came to be appointed on deputation as Cluster Resource Centre (CRC) Coordinator on 19.08.1997. Owing to subsequent administrative requirements, the petitioner was repatriated to his parent cadre, i.e., Primary Teacher, by order dated 29.05.1999. However, being desirous of continuing as CRC Coordinator, the petitioner raised a dispute by filing RCA No. 326 of 1999.
4.2 Pursuant thereto, the competent authority issued a communication dated 29.10.2004 intimating the petitioner that his deputation as CRC Coordinator stood cancelled and directed him to resume duties forthwith in his substantive post as Primary Teacher. A panchnama evidencing the said fact was drawn on 01.11.2004. As the petitioner failed to resume his duties at the place of posting and remained on unauthorised and unsanctioned leave, he was treated as absent from service.
4.3 Thereafter, the petitioner instituted Regular Civil Suits Page 3 of 18 Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 21:31:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1382/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined being RCS Nos.326 of 1999 and 419 of 2004 before the competent Civil Court, wherein his application for interim relief under Exhibit '5' came to be rejected vide order dated 23.12.2004. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 126 of 2004. By order dated 09.02.2005, followed by order dated 11.02.2005, the Appellate Court granted interim relief akin to the final relief claimed, directing the petitioner to remain present in the transfer camp.
4.4 Pursuant to such orders, the State Project Officer, Gandhinagar, by communications dated 20.04.2005 and 18.06.2005, opined that the petitioner's appointment as CRC Coordinator at a different cluster would not be in the interest of the project. Consequently, a public notice issued in May 2005 informed all concerned that a transfer camp would be organised on the specified dates. Despite being informed, the petitioner failed to remain present at the scheduled transfer camp, thereby continuing his unauthorised absence for approximately 36 months (3 Years).
4.5 Consequently, a show cause notice dated 20.12.2007 Page 4 of 18 Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 21:31:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1382/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to resume duties within seven days and to submit his explanation, failing which disciplinary action would follow. Despite this, the petitioner neither resumed duty nor offered a satisfactory explanation.
He was again advised to remain present at the transfer camp on 29.04.2008, which he again failed to attend. The competent authority, after following due process of law and considering the prolonged unauthorised absence, terminated the services of the petitioner vide order dated 13.02.2009. The petitioner preferred a statutory appeal against the said termination before the Tribunal on 24.03.2009. The appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 01.06.2009, thereby confirming the order of termination.
4.6 Subsequently, the petitioner moved representations dated 30.06.2009 and 05.12.2009 before the District Primary Education Officer, and also preferred Special Civil Application No. 9375 of 2010 before this Court, which was withdrawn on 27.08.2010 in view of the pendency of proceedings before the statutory Tribunal. Thereafter, a representation dated 22.09.2010 was submitted by the petitioner seeking reinstatement either as CRC Coordinator or as Primary Page 5 of 18 Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 21:31:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1382/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined Teacher. The competent authority, after affording opportunity of hearing on 24.02.2011 and considering the written submissions tendered, rejected the representation vide order dated 21.03.2011, which was communicated on 28.04.2011. 4.7 It is pertinent to note that the petitioner's deputation was a temporary arrangement and, as per settled legal principles and the provisions of the Gujarat Civil Services Rules, 2002, an employee cannot continue on deputation indefinitely. The employer retains administrative discretion to repatriate an employee to the parent cadre as and when required. Accordingly, the petitioner's repatriation in 2004 to his substantive post of Primary Teacher was in consonance with law.
4.8 It further transpires that from 2004 to 2009, the petitioner was repeatedly instructed to join duties as Primary Teacher and was called to attend transfer camps. The petitioner, however, failed to comply and instead cited mental illness as a reason for his absence without producing any medical record or having sought sanctioned leave. His prolonged unauthorised absence of about five years amounted Page 6 of 18 Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 21:31:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1382/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined to conscious abandonment of service. Accordingly, the disciplinary action culminating in termination of service was justified and remains unchallenged in law, the orders of termination having attained finality.
4.9 As regards the civil litigation, the petitioner had also challenged the order of repatriation by filing an appeal before the competent authority, which came to be dismissed on 09.05.2005. Alternatively, he instituted RCS No. 416 of 2004 before the Civil Court, which lacked jurisdiction under the Primary Education Act. The learned Civil Court rejected his application; however, in the appeal against rejection, the learned District Court granted interim relief on 11.02.2005, virtually amounting to a grant of final relief at the interim stage. Eventually, the said civil suit came to be dismissed in the year 2015, and the appeal thereagainst was also dismissed, facts which were allegedly suppressed by the petitioner in subsequent proceedings.
4.10 The impugned order dated 09.05.2025 passed in Special Civil Application No. 7862 of 2011 with connected Civil Application (for Amendment) No. 1 of 2024 is therefore Page 7 of 18 Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 21:31:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1382/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined sought to be recalled and reviewed, with the following prayers:-
"(A) To review the order and consequently modify the order dated 09.05.2025 passed in Special Civil Application No. 7862 of 2011 and Civil Application (for amendment) No. 1 of 2024 in Special Civil Application No. 7862 of 2011 at Annexure - A to meet with ends of justice;
(B) Pending the final adjudication of the lis be pleased to suspend the operation, implementation and execution order under reconsideration:
(C) Pass such other and further orders as may deem fit in the interest of justice:"
5. On the other-hand, Mr.Munjal Bhatt, instructed by Ms.Shailee S.Joshi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioner has argued that the law is well settled that the scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and circumscribed. Such jurisdiction may be exercised by this Court only in cases where there exists an error apparent on the face of the record. It is respectfully submitted that, to the limited understanding of the answering Respondents, no such apparent error has been demonstrated or substantiated by the Applicant in the present proceedings. On the contrary, the averments made in the review Page 8 of 18 Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 21:31:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1382/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined application are primarily directed towards a re-agitation of the merits of the main petition, which is impermissible in law and falls outside the narrow compass of review jurisdiction. 5.1 It is further submitted that by way of the present application, the applicant seeks to re-argue the entire matter on merits, despite having failed to appear before this Court on 09.05.2025. The review mechanism cannot be invoked as a means to reopen concluded proceedings or to obtain a second adjudication on the same set of facts. It is pertinent to note that the order dated 09.05.2025 was passed after taking into consideration the previous orders of this Court, which have attained finality, not having been assailed by the Applicant. In absence of any demonstrable error in those orders, the present attempt to reopen the same is wholly misconceived and untenable in law.
5.2 It was mentioned that, without prejudice to the above, the applicant has sought to contend that the responsibility to make payment to the answering Respondents lies upon Respondent No. 2, namely the Director of Primary Education, Gandhinagar, and not upon the Applicant. In this regard, Page 9 of 18 Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 21:31:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1382/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined reliance is placed upon the order dated 11.02.2005 (Page 34/H of the main petition), wherein certain recommendations were allegedly made to the Director, GCERT, Gandhinagar. On this basis, it is urged that Paragraph '8' of the order dated 09.05.2025 contains an error apparent on the face of the record.
5.3. It is further contended that Paragraph '9' of the said order also suffers from an error, as the non-compliance, if any, was attributable to Respondent No. 2 and not Respondent No.
3. The Applicant has additionally contended that since the services of the answering Respondent stood terminated under order dated 13.02.2009, which was subsequently affirmed by the learned Education Tribunal on 21.03.2011, the recommendations had become redundant and unenforceable. Alternatively, it is alleged that the recommendations stood nullified upon dismissal of the Respondent's suit on 31.01.2015.
5.4. Mr.Bhatt submitted that such a contention was never raised in the main proceedings and cannot now be introduced under the guise of review, particularly by producing Page 10 of 18 Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 21:31:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1382/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined documents not forming part of the original record. The attempt to introduce fresh evidence at this stage is impermissible in law. The unexplained silence of the applicant from 2015 till 2025 further disentitles it to any equitable relief. Accordingly, it is humbly prayed that the present review application be dismissed in limine, and that the applicant be directed to forthwith comply with the order dated 09.05.2025.
6. The State of Gujarat has only pointed out its limited role in the matter and submitted that the original petitioner was appointed to service by the District Primary Education Officer, who also exercised the authority to terminate his services. At no point was the Director of Primary Education (Respondent No.2) associated with or involved in either the appointment or termination process. Accordingly, Respondent No.2 possessed neither the jurisdiction nor any occasion to issue orders relating to the petitioner's posting or transfer and further on merits it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation, inasmuch as his services had already been lawfully terminated by the competent authority, original Respondent No.3, well before the initiation of the present Page 11 of 18 Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 21:31:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1382/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined proceedings. It is then submitted that the role of Respondent No.2 was purely formal and limited, also, there was neither wilful disobedience nor any deliberate non-compliance on the part of Respondent No.2.
7. The parameters of reviewing a decision have been itemized in the State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and Another, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 612, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :-
"35. The principles which can be culled out from the above noted judgments are:
(i) The power of the Tribunal to review its order/decision u/s 22(3)(f) of the Act is akin/analogous to the power of a Civil Court u/s 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.
(ii) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise.
(iii) The expression "any other sufficient reason" appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specified grounds.
(iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record justifying exercise of power u/s 22(3)(f).
(v) An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review.
(vi) A decision/order cannot be reviewed u/s 22(3)(f) on the basis of subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger bench of the Tribunal or of a superior Court.
(vii) While considering an application for review, the Tribunal Page 12 of 18 Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 21:31:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1382/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined must confine its adjudication with reference to material which was available at the time of initial decision. The happening of some subsequent event or development cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent.
(viii) Mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The party seeking review has also to show that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the Court/Tribunal earlier."
8. In Kamlesh Varma Vs. Mayawati and Others, reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320, the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the principles and the grounds on which the review is maintainable and also the grounds on which the review is not maintainable in the following terms :-
"Summary of the principles
20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:
20.1 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" have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius 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 v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd.
20.2 When the review will not be maintainable:
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.Page 13 of 18 Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 21:31:43 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1382/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined
(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."
9. Keeping the aforesaid principles in mind, it is clear that the review-applicant has placed its case in review as if the writ petition is sought to be argued on merits for the first time before this Court. The reasons for which the review applicant failed to argue the writ petition, thereby suffering the consequences in the order under review are neither germane to the present application nor should such a brazen stand which is akin to picking and choosing its own time to argue its case should be entertained by this Court. Everything which Mr.Jayrajsinh Chauhan, learned advocate has submitted are, even according to him, matters of contemporaneous record which he ought to have placed before the Court in the several Page 14 of 18 Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 21:31:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1382/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined opportunities that he was presented with during the pendency of the writ petition. Having failed so to do, as has been documented in paragraph No. 9 of the judgment under review, he must not be permitted in the interest of justice to argue the writ petition by filing a review petition. Therefore, I am of the opinion that there is no ground whatsoever upon which the present review application can be held to be maintainable. I am further fortified in my view because the review applicant has accepted all the interim orders and their attendant observations quoted in paragraph No. 9 of the judgment under review and no appeal has been preferred against any of the orders referred to in paragraph No. 9.
10. In the order dated 30.11.2011, passed in the writ petition, it has been clearly recorded as under :-
"Considering overall facts and circumstances what transpires is that the petitioner and the Respondent authority both have not addressed the issues and subject matter in proper perspective. It may be true to some extent that the petitioner had not complied with order of the authority which was passed in 2004 but at the same time the remedy was taken by the petitioner were he had approached the Court, in which, recommendations were made by the District Court in favour of the petitioner to transfer him at nearby place where the wife of the petitioner was serving in the District itself. Even later on when the petitioner came to be dismissed from service on the ground of noncompliance of the order, the Page 15 of 18 Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 21:31:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1382/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined 'Tribunal' constituted under the Act had also decided and resolved that if the petitioner was ready and willing to serve as a primary teacher his case was to be recommended through Director through State Government. When learned Single Judge of this Court had issued direction in a writ petition filed by the petitioner to see that the Tribunal may enforce the order as above, by the second order which is impugned in this petition virtually the Tribunal had exercised the power of review which is not permissible and the Tribunal could not have acted beyond the directions given by this Court in the writ petitions filed by the petitioner with a prayer to comply that the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 1st June, 2009.
In the backdrop of facts, learned AGP to seek instruction from the authority about posting the petitioner as a teacher in Panchmahal District.
Stand over to 7th December, 2011"
11. Therefore, all that has been submitted on merits by the review applicant-Respondent No.3 in the writ petition was duly considered by this Court and therefore, also on merits, nothing was left to be argued except to comply with the directions issued repeatedly by this Court, to which the Respondents did not have the courtesy to even respond. It is quite understandable that the writ petitioner's suit came to be dismissed after remaining pending for ten years during which numerous orders came to be passed by this Court inspite of which, as noted above, the writ petition was neither argued nor the directions passed by this Court obeyed by the Respondents. Therefore, the dismissal of the suit during the Page 16 of 18 Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 21:31:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1382/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined pendency of the writ petition cannot be fatal to the petitioner's case. This exercise in ascertaining the merits of the case is being done to prima facie satisfy to conscience of this Court that no interest of justice will be sub-served in reviewing/recalling the judgment and order under review. The deliberate and wilful attempt on the part of the Respondents to tire out the petitioner to make the writ petition infructuous by efflux of time by stonewalling the proceedings with impunity is good enough ground to award exemplary damages to the writ petitioner in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, even without formally setting aside the termination order which came to be challenged in the writ petition.
12. At the same time, I understand that the financial burden judgment under review has shaken the review applicant to the point of to eventually turn up in the Courtroom to finally plead case and assist the Court in reaching at some conclusion, a boundant duty both of the party as well as the officer of the Court who was representing the party. Therefore, giving due consideration to the entire consepectus of even and possible hardship that may befall the review applicant in implementing Page 17 of 18 Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 21:31:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1382/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined the judgment under review, I deem it appropriate to reduce the compensation payable to the writ petitioner from Rs.50,00,000/- to Rs.25,00,000/-. At the same time, for reagitating the issues which ought to have been raised in the writ petition in the present review application and having argued the writ petition for the first time in these proceedings, I impose further costs of Rs.1,00,000/- upon the review applicant which shall be paid to the Panchmahal District Court Advocate's Library within a period of four weeks from the date of uploading of the order. The judgment and order 09.05.2025 is hereby modified to the aforesaid extent. Rule is discharged.
(D.N.RAY,J) BINA SHAH Page 18 of 18 Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 21:31:43 IST 2025