Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Uco Bank vs Md. Sahid @ Mahammad Sahid And Ors on 16 December, 2022
16.12.2022
KC(1-5)
RVW 65 of 2020
UCO Bank
-versus-
Md. Sahid @ Mahammad Sahid and Ors.
With
CAN 1 of 2020 (Old CAN No. 3783 of 2020)
With
CAN 2 of 2020 (Old CAN No. 3785 of 2020)
With
CPAN 529 of 2020
In
F.M.A. 2072 of 2016
With
RVW 66 of 2020
With
CAN 1 of 2020 (Old CAN No. 3788 of 2020)
With
CAN 2 of 2020 (Old CAN No. 3789 of 2020)
With
CPAN 530 of 2020
In
F.M.A. 2071 of 2016
Mr. Sabyasachi Choudhury,
Mr. Rajarshi Dutta,
Mr. Sourjya Roy....................For the review applicant.
Mr. Soumya Majumdar,
Mr. Piyush Chaturvedi,
Mr. Madhusudan Roy............For the opposite parties in
RVW 65 and 66 of 2020
and
for the applicants in
CPAN 529 and 530 of 2020.
We have closely examined the judgment and order
dated 24th February, 2020 of which review is sought.
We have also very carefully considered the
submission of Mr. Sabyasachi Choudhury, learned
advocate assisted by Mr. Rajarshi Dutta, learned
advocate for the applicant in the review application.
What is sought to be canvassed before us is an
alleged error made by this bench in the interpretation of
the terms and conditions prescribed in the
advertisement inviting applications for the post of
Anganwadi workers. Our attention has been drawn to a
clause in the advertisement which said that a candidate
with a higher qualification would not be considered.
In this connection we observe that we had relied
in the judgment on a passage in Rina Dutta and
Ors.-vs- Anjali Mahato and Ors., reported in 2010(2)
CLJ (CAL.) 321 "it is open to the employer to make a
rule providing for disqualification of candidates
possessing qualification higher than the prescribed
qualification, but the burden would be on the employer
to justify such a rule."
We held that the said terms and conditions did
not prevent appointing candidates with a higher
qualification.
It is also pointed out by learned counsel that the
court did not appreciate the judgments covering the
field in their proper perspective. If those judgments were
properly shown to the bench the decision would have
been different.
We are afraid that these are not the grounds
under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure
on which a judgment and order may be reviewed by the
court. Neither an error apparent on the face of the
record nor any evidence which in spite of due diligence
could not be produced before the court, has been
disclosed in these applications. At best there may be an
error in the appreciation of facts or law which the
division has made. If such an error has occurred it is
not to be corrected on review but by a superior court.
Otherwise there would be no finality in the judgment of
a court. After pronouncement thereof the court would
be asked to review its decision and this might go on
indefinitely, keeping the lis between the parties
undecided.
For those reasons we find no merit in these review
applications. We dispose of the same with the above
observations. The connected applications are also
disposed of.
It would always be open to the applicant to
challenge the impugned judgment and order dated 24th
February, 2020 in accordance with law.
The contempt applications may be listed at the
next sitting of the court after January, 2023.
(I.P. MUKERJI, J.)
(ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.)
