Raj Kishore Pathak vs Chancellor Deen Dayal Upadhyaya ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 12499 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


 
Court No. - 21
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 34774 of 1999
 
Petitioner :- Raj Kishore Pathak
 
Respondent :- Chancellor Deen Dayal Upadhyaya And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Upadhyaya,Arvind Srivastava,S.K. Rai
 
Counsel for Respondent :- R.K. Ojha,B.D. Pandey,S.C.,Shashi Prakash Rai
 

 
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

Order on Civil Misc. Review Application No. 240884 of 2013

1. The instant review petition is filed seeking a review of judgement dated 21.11.2007 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.34774 of 1999.

Factual Matrix

2. In this matter the petitioner herein, was a post graduate in Political Science and, thereafter, he had done doctorate in Political Science and he was awarded Ph.D. Degree in the year 1995.

3. It is evident that the petitioner had no degree in law but claims to have published two papers in the field of law, which qualifies him for appointment as Reader in Law Faculty. The selection committee held a meeting on 10.10.1997 and had interviewed various candidates along with the petitioner.

4. The University of Gorakhpur in the Statutes has laid down the qualification for appointment on the post of Reader and Professor. Statute 11.02 reads as follow:-

"11.02. In the case of the Faculties of Arts (except the department of Fine Art & Music), Commerce, Science, Education and Law the following shall be the minimum qualifications for the post of Reader and Professor--

(1) a Reader in the University, namely:-

(I) Good academic record with a doctorate degree or equivalent published work, and active engagement in research or innovation in teaching methods or production of teaching materials; and....."

It is evident that the candidate to be appointed on the post of Reader had to have doctorate degree or equivalent published work in the field in which he was supposed to be appointed as a Reader.

5. The petitioner had a Ph. D. Degree in Political Science, but claims to have written two Articles on the basis of which he had applied for the post of Reader in the Faculty of Law. The selection committee gave its recommendation, which was accepted by he Executive Council in its resolution dated 11.10.1998 wherein the dissent was recorded against the recommendation of appointment of the petitioner, but the then Chairman of selection committee, Professor R.K.Mishra was all out for recommending the name of the petitioner. A representation was made by the respondent no.3 to the Chancellor annexing copy of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Triloki Nath Singh vs. Dr. Bhagwan Bhagwan Din Misra 1 wherein the Apex Court has categorically observed that for the post of Reader the research should be in the subject concern, therefore, a degree in the subject of Political Science cannot be considered as a degree required for appointment as Reader in Law Faculty. On which Chancellor issued notice to the petitioner. Both the University and the petitioner submitted their replies to the Chancellor.

6. The Chancellor had found that according to Statutes of the University, apart from having consistent good academic record, the candidate must possess Doctorate degree or the published work of the candidate must be of a high standard and the candidate should have possessed the experience of teaching. In addition to the above the further requirement was that he must have worked as teacher for five years and out of that must have Lecturer for at least three years and have guided students for research. It was held, that the main controversy is as to whether the petitioner, possessing the Doctorate degree in Political Science would be suited for being appointed as Reader in the Faculty of Law.

7. After considering the case set up by the petitioner, the Chancellor has arrived at a conclusion that no doubt the Constitution of India, is one of the subjects in the Political Science but in the context of research conducted by the petitioner in the Political Science department cannot be said to be the research work done by the petitioner in the Constitutional Law. The Chancellor has recorded a finding that, the study of Constitution in the context of Political Science is different than in the context of Law. The Chancellor, vide its order dated 13.08.1999 held that since the petitioner did not possess requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Reader, therefore, the appointment of the petitioner as Reader in the Faculty of Law was incorrect.

8. The petitioner assailed this order by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34774 of 1999 (Raj Kishore Pathak Vs. Chancellor Deen Dayal Upadhyaya And Others), before this Hon'ble Court. After hearing the parties this Hon'ble Court held that the view taken by the Chancellor does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity which may warrant interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition was devoid of merits and was accordingly dismissed vide order dated 21.11.2007.

9. The order passed by this Court was challenged by the petitioner before Hon'ble Supreme Court by preferring Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court heard the matter and dismissed the petition on merits, vide its judgement and order dated 21.11.2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-

" Heard learned counsel for the parties.

We do not find any merit in the petition.

The special leave petition is dismissed."

10. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the instant review application under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. There was some delay in filing of the review petition so the petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay along with the review petition.

11. Since the matter was pending in Hon'ble Supreme Court and soon after the dismissal of S.L.P. the petitioner had preferred the instant review petition, hence, the delay in filing the review petition was technical and is accordingly condoned.

12. Mr. Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the review petitioner argued the matter vociferously but failed to point out any error apparent on the face of record in the impugned order or any other reason, which may call for review of the judgement passed by this Hon'ble Court.

13. Counsel for the respondent further pointed out the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Triloki Nath Singh (supra) wherein it is held that doctorate in the subject concerned was an essential qualification. Doctorate in one subject will not entitle a candidate to be appointed as a reader in some other subject.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd., M/s. v. Lt. Governor Delhi2 has held that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgement delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgement 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.

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm and another vs. K. Santhakumaran and others3 has held that no review is maintainable after Special Leave Petition is dismissed on merits after hearing the parties.

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa & Ors.4 has held that under Section 114 read with Order 47 CPC. the power to review is not absolute and is hedged in by the restrictions indicated in Order 47. The power can be exercised on the application of a person on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. The power can also be exercised on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. A review cannot be claimed or asked for merely for a fresh hearing, or arguments, or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier, that is to say, the power of review can be exercised only for correction of a patent error of law or fact which stares in the face without any elaborate argument being needed for establishing it. It may be pointed out that the expression "any other sufficient reason" used in Order 47 Rule 1 means a reason sufficiently analogous to those specified in the rule.

17. In view of foregoing discussions as well as the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are not inclined to entertain the review application.

18. Accordingly, the review application is rejected. No order as to costs.

(Prashant Kumar, J.)  (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

Order Date :- 24.4.2023

S.P.