Calcutta High Court
Priyabrata Dasgupta vs The State Of West Bengal And Ors on 7 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
(ORIGINAL SIDE)
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay
RVWO 45 of 2024
in connection with
WPO 573 of 2019
IA No. GA/1/2024, GA/2/2024
Priyabrata Dasgupta
Vs.
The State of West Bengal and Ors.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sakti Pada Jana
: Ms. Sudipta Pramanik
For the State : Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay
: Ms. Tapati Samanta
Judgment on : 07.11.2025
Rai Chattopadhyay, J. :-
1. This is an application to seek review of this Court's order dated
August 20, 2024, passed in writ petition No. WPO 573 of 2019. By
dint of the said order the Court has dismissed the writ petition as
above, as was filed by the review applicant/writ petitioner.
2. The subject matter of the writ petition was related to the alleged
illegal denial of approval of the applicant as a post graduate teacher,
by the opposite party/respondent/District Inspector of Schools
(Secondary Education) Kolkata, vide its order dated February 1,
2011, which he says he is entitled to, in view of G.O.NO. 670 S.E.(S)
dated September 4, 1998 and G.O. No. 1691 S.E.(S) dated September
20, 2001.
3. In spite of service of notice, no one has appeared to oppose the said
application on behalf of the State. Hence, the matter is taken up for
adjudication in absence of the State/Opposite Party.
4. Before taking up the review application as above, for consideration, it
is necessary that the other application filed by the applicant, for
condonation of delay of 55 days in filing the memorandum of review,
be taken up and decided.
5. There is no apparent dispute as regards the prayer of the applicant as
above. Having perused the grounds as mentioned in the said
application and having found the same to be sufficient, the Court
hereby condones the delay of 55 days in filing the present review
application. Hence, GA No.1 of 2024 is allowed. The same is thus
disposed of.
6. Mr. Jana, learned advocate for the applicant submits that the order
of the Court as mentioned above suffers due to non-consideration of
the relevant fact and erroneous application of law. He insists that the
same may be reviewed on the ground that in case of a teacher in a
D.A. getting school, like the one in which the applicant is serving,
where the said applicant has not been appointed on the
recommendation of the West Bengal School Service Commission, the
statute namely the West Bengal Schools (Control of Expenditure) Act,
2005, as amended, particularly section 14 thereof, shall have no
manner of application, though the Court has proceeded thereupon,
which may be an improper application of law in case of the
applicant/writ petitioner. That, since the Court has made the said
provision of law applicable in case of the petitioner and ultimately
turned down the petitioner‟s prayer in the writ petition, for grant of
higher pay scale, the same has made the order of the Court amenable
to its review jurisdiction.
7. Mr. Jana learned advocate submits further by referring to the
amended provision of section 2 of the Act of 2005 [amendment vide
the West Bengal Schools (Control of Expenditure) (Amendment) Act
2016], that substitution of the word "pay", in Explanation-I of sub-
clause (ii) in clause (m) of section 2 thereof, instead and place of
"basic pay", would be applicable to the applicant/writ petitioner to
render him to be eligible for grant of higher pay scale, who has been
placed as against the permanent vacant post of a post graduate
category retired teacher. He says that according to the staff pattern
also, the petitioner would therefore, be eligible for such grant of
higher pay scale.
8. Mr. Jana, learned Advocate for the applicant/writ petitioner has
relied on a decision of the Hon‟ble Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Radha Bhattad Vs. Rashmi Cement Limited reported in (2023) SCC
OnLine Cal 2570 to buttress his argument as regards the scope and
power of review of this Court.
9. Before discussing the scope, extent and power of this Court under the
review jurisdiction, it is necessary that the relevant statutory
provision, as referred to by the applicant may once be looked into.
That is „Explanation-I‟ of Section 2(m) of the West Bengal Schools
(Control of Expenditure) Act, 2005, as follows :
"Explanation I. - "Aided with its grammatical variations, used with
reference to a school, shall mean aided by the State Government in
the shape of financial assistance towards the basic pay of the
teachers and non-teaching staff of that school."
10. The amended provision is as written herein bellow:
"(2) in clause (m), in sub-clause (ii),-
(a) in Explanation I, for the words "basic pay", the word "pay" shall
be substituted;"
11. The amendment expands the scope of the provision treating the
entire pay and not only the basic pay as the components of financial
assistance which renders a recognized non-government institution as
an „aided‟ school. This hardly has any bearing as to the pay scale
allowable to a teacher, on the basis of his qualifications at the time of
induction in service.
12. The scope of a review application in the context of a writ petition is
limited and well defined by constitutional provisions and judicial
precedents, primarily to prevent or correct errors apparent on the
face of the record or to address specific legal errors, rather than to re-
examine or reassess the merits of the original decision. Such a well
settled proposition of law is not required to be cited with reference,
though a few may be mentioned, as in the case of Kantaru
Rajeevara Vs. Indian Young Lawyers Association reported in
(2020) vol.9 SCC Pg.121, where it has been held that the power of
review is constitutionally rooted in Articles 137 and 145 of the
Constitution, with specific procedural limitations imposed by Order
XLVII, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code; that judicial review is
confined to correcting errors of law or procedural irregularities, not to
reappraise factual findings or substitute the other opinion for that of
the original decision; the Court emphasizes that review is not an
opportunity for re-litigation or for the correction of errors based on
new facts or different interpretations of facts.
13. In M.M. Thomas Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2000) Vol. 1 SCC
page 666, the Supreme Court has come to the view that the High
Court is a Court of records as envisaged under Article 215 of the
Constitution and, therefore, as inherent power to correct the record;
that it is only proper that the plenary powers of the High Court would
include the power of review relating to errors apparent on the face of
records.
14. Similar proposition of law has been upheld in Sanjay Kumar
Agarwal Vs. State Tax Officer reported at (2024) 2 SCC 362 And
Arun Dev Upadhyaya Vs. Integrated Sales Service Ltd. reported
at (2023) 8 SCC 11, by the Supreme Court. A judgment is open to
review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face
of the record; 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;
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; in exercise
of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1CPC, it is not permissible for
an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected; a review petition
has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an "appeal in
disguise"; under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be
permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already
been addressed and decided. From the above, it is evident that a
power to review cannot be exercised as an appellate power and has to
be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
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.
15. So far as the judgment referred to by the applicant in Radha
Bhattad's case (Supra), it is found that the same is not applicable
in so far as the same deals with the apparent error on the face of the
record of the Court and not any error based on the fact of the case
and with regard to application of law as emphasized by the applicant
in the instant review petition.
16. In the instant review application, the applicants endeavour is only
that, to insist and draw the Court to re-apprise the fact of the case
again and decide again whether its earlier decision has been right or
not. According to the applicant the earlier decision of the Court dated
August 20, 2024 has to be substituted in view of non-consideration of
the relevant law, whereas any such overlap is merely inconspicuous,
as discussed above.
17. For the reasons as discussed above, the Court finds no merits in the
grounds pleaded by the review applicant, in RVWO 45 of 2025.
18. The said review application No. RVWO 45 of 2025 is dismissed.
19. Urgent certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to
the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)
