Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. And 2 Others vs Anand Kumar Rai And 3 Others on 7 January, 2025
Author: Ashutosh Srivastava
Bench: Ashutosh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:3039
Reserved
Court No. - 69
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 605 of 2023
Applicant :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- Anand Kumar Rai And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- C.S.C.
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Santosh Kr. Singh Paliwal
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
The instant Review Petition has been filed at the instance of State of U. P. seeking review of the order dated 19.10.2022 passed in Writ A No. 8734 of 2022, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition was allowed and the office order dated 9.3.2022 issued by the State Government was quashed and the petitioners were held entitled to the consequential benefits.
In the writ petition, besides a challenge to the office order dated 9.3.2022 issued by the State Government, a prayer to treat the petitioners as exempted from training and entitling them the trained pay-scale of Assistant Teacher w. e. f. 1.1.2004 as also sanction arrears of salary to each of the petitioners in trained pay-scale w. e. f. 1.1.2004 till date was claimed.
The writ petition was allowed on three counts. Firstly, the claim of the petitioners for exemption from training was directed to be exempted in the light of the Government Order dated 9.12.2003 after calling for a report from the institution as to whether their claim was covered by the Government Order dated 9.12.2003 vide order dated 12.7.2021 passed in Writ A No. 4127 of 2021. The said order having not been assailed further, the claim of the petitioners could not be rejected on the ground that the Government Order dated 9.12.2003 had been superseded by subsequent Government Order. Secondly, when the petitioners' right stood accrued under the Government Order dated 9.12.2003 it was incumbent upon the Regional Director of Education of the concerned region to have passed appropriate orders. Thirdly, similar benefit had been extended to one Sri Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, Assistant Teacher vide office Memorandum dated 29.1.2020 in compliance of order dated 2.9.2013 passed in Writ A No. 47632 of 2007 and the petitioners could not be discriminated with.
The review has been sought on the following grounds:-
(i) The Government Order dated 9.12.2003 was no longer applicable to the institutions where the petitioners were discharging their duties as Assistant Teacher as they were being run and operated by the Social Welfare Department and not the Education Department.
(ii) The Government Order dated 26.4.2010 issued by the Social Welfare Department providing for the facilities for exemption from training to the teachers of Primary Section attached to Non Government aided Madhyamik Vidyalaya provided under Government Order dated 9.12.2003 had been cancelled vide Government Order dated 4.5.2012 and no challenge having been laid to the Government Order dated 4.5.2012, the said Government Order held the field.
(iii) The office memorandum dated 29.1.2020 extending the benefit to the similarly circumstanced Assistant Teacher, Sri Awadesh Kumar Pandey in compliance of the order dated 2.9.2013 passed in Writ A No. 47632 of 2007 has been cancelled vide Government Order dated 30.8.2023 and as such, the petitioners are not entitled to the said benefit.
I have heard Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the Review Applicants, Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Santosh Kumar Singh Paliwal and have perused the record.
A perusal of the record, particularly the respective stand of the parties taken on their pleadings in the counter and rejoinder affidavits, are again sought to be pressed by way of the instant review application.
So far as, the ground urged in respect of withdrawing the benefit extended to the Assistant Teacher, Sri Awadhesh Kumar Pandey under the Office Memorandum dated 29.1.2020 having been cancelled vide Government Order dated 30.8.2023 is concerned, it has been urged by learned counsel for the respondent that the benefit to Sri Awadhesh Kumar Pandey had been withdrawn only to avoid the contempt proceedings drawn vide Contempt Application (Civil) No. 5359 of 2023 (Arvind Kumar Rai Versus Hariom, Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department and another) in which notices had been issued on 31.7.2023. The benefit extended to other similarly circumstanced teachers vide orders dated 24.2.2011, 27.11.2012 and 4.12.2012 has in fact not been withdrawn.
It is now fairly well settled by a catena of decisions of the Courts of law that the scope of review if very minimal and it is circumscribed by the provisions of the Statute. A review applicant cannot reargue and is not entitled for rehearing on merits. Even an erroneous decision cannot be a ground for the Court to undertake review as the first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and in absence of any such error, finality attached to it / order cannot be disturbed.
The Apex Court in a recent decision reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1406 (Review Petition) (Civil) No. 1620 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020 (Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Versus State Tax Officer and another) in para 16 thereof, has laid down the law relating to the entertainment of Review Application which is reproduced below:-
?16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that:
(i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.
(ii) 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.
(iii) An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review.
(iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be ?reheard and corrected.?
(v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be ?an appeal in disguise.?
(vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.
(vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.
(viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.?
For all the above reasons, I find no merit in the review Petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.
Review Petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.1.2025
HR
