Chattisgarh High Court
Chief Executive Officer vs Bhupendra Anand Sinha on 16 January, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2025:CGHC:2763
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
REVP No. 115 of 2023
1 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
(Respondent No. 2 In WPS) --- Petitioner/Applicant
versus
1 - Bhupendra Anand Sinha S/o Shri Madhav Lal Sinha Aged About 36 Years R/o
Teacher Colony, Ward No. 09, Girhola Road, Charama, Nagar Panchayat,
Charama, Tahsil & Thana- Charama, Distt. Kanker (North Bastar) (Chhattisgarh)
(Petitioner in WPS)
2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Administration
And Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, New Raipur
(Chhattisgarh) (Respondent No. 1 in WPS/Formal Party)
--- Respondents
REVP No. 121 of 2023
1 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
(Respondent No.02 In WPS)
--- Petitioner/Applicant
Versus
1 - Smt. Pratima Tiwari W/o Shri Amit Tiwari Aged About 44 Years R/o Alakhdham
Nagar, Mangla, Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
(Petitioner In WPS)
2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat Department, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, District Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent
No.01 In WPS)/ Formal Party
--- Respondents
(Cause title taken from CIS System)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner/Applicant : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate.
(REVP No. 115 of 2023)
For State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, GA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey
Order on Board
16.01.2025
1. Since the issue involved in both these review petitions is the same,
they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. By both the review petitions, the petitioner/applicant is seeking review
of the order dated 22.03.2023 passed in WPS No. 1467/2013 & WPS
No. 1415/2013 by this Court, whereby the writ petitions filed by private
respondents have been disposed of with direction to appoint the
private respondents against the post of Teacher (Panchayat) Librarian
as per the earlier issued merit list.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant would submit that the
advertisement issued dated 07.12.2012 has wrongly mentioned for the
post of Shikshak (Panchayat) Librarian, which came to the knowledge
of the authorities during the selection process, the rules of the
Panchayat Department Rules, 2012 and the order of the School
Education Department regarding the sanctioned post with pay scale of
the post of Librarian (Minimum pay) was not taken into consideration
when the advertisement was issued. The sanctioned post was
equivalent to the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat), Shiksha Karmi
Grade-III having pay scale of Rs. 3800-100-5800, whereas the post
advertised had mentioned a pay scale of Rs. 4500-125-7000, thus it
could not have been possible to recruit the candidates in absence of
sanctioned post. Learned counsel would further submit that the
authorities had sought directions from the higher authorities since if
recruitment made against wrong pay scale that would have created
financial hurdles to release the monthly salary and the authorities also
informed that since the post is equivalent to the post of Shiksha Karmi
Grade-III and in Zila Panchayat, Durg only have 52 sanctioned posts
were available for Librarian (Min. Pay) Shiksha Karim Grade-III. The
present petitioner/applicant was issued an order by the Panchayat
Department on 16.04.2015 directing not to do/proceed with the
recruitment against the aforesaid advertised post till further orders as
the advertisement issued was itself incorrect. Vide general
administration meeting dated 18.02.2016 in the light of direction issued
in WPS No. 3380 of 2013 order dated 06.01.2016, the Zila Panchayat
passed resolution thereby cancelling the incorrect advertisement and
thus, no recruitment can be made against the same, the Zila
Panchayat issued a press release, whereby the cancellation of the
aforesaid incorrect advertisement was informed to the general public.
The Zila Panchayat, Durg had already been filed its reply in WPS No.
1415 of 2013 & WPS No. 1467 of 2013 and these subsequent
developments could not be brought on record as additional reply,
though the resolution regarding cancellation was through written
communication was informed to the AG office. The advertisement
stood cancelled on 18.02.2016 and same was informed to the general
public through the press release, thus rendering the instant matters
WPS No. 1415 of 2013 & WPS No. 1467 of 2013 as infructuous. The
present petitioner/ applicant has provided all the necessary documents
of subsequent development, which could not be presented before the
Hon'ble Court due to the bona fide understanding that the letter dated
22.03.2016 would be sufficient communication. So, the impugned
order dated 23.03.2023 may be recalled/modified on this ground that
the advertisement was issued for recruitment to the post of Teacher
(Panchayat) Librarian stood cancelled on 18.02.2016, thus rendering
the WPS No. 1415 of 2013 and WPS No. 1467 of 2013 have become
infructuous and thus no appointment can be given to the respondents
against the aforesaid posts.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 in REVP
No. 115 of 2023 supporting the order under review submits that the
petitioner/applicant did not file any documents before passing
impugned order and after passing impugned order, petitioner/applicant
has filed these review petitions on the ground of some resolution
passed in way back in 2016, it is clear that this Court passed an order
on 22.03.2023 after hearing both the parties, therefore, the present
review petitions seeking review of order dated 23.03.2023 is liable to
be dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for the State supported the order passed by this
Court.
6. It is well settled that scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited
and only an error apparent on face of record can be corrected in the
said jurisdiction and re-appraisal/re-appreciation cannot be done in
exercise of said jurisdiction as that would amount to exercise of
appellate jurisdiction which is impermissible in law as has been held in
catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court, such as Devaraju
Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 61, Meera Bhanja
(Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt), reported in (1995) 1
SCC 170, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others.
reported in (1996) 10 SCC 174, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India
and others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, Akhilesh Yavad v.
Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 1 and
Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others, reported
in (2017) 4 SCC 692).
7. In the light of above judgments, in the present case petitioner/applicant
himself submits that he could not file documents before passing the
order impugned, thus the grounds raised by the review
petitioner/applicant in both review petitions cannot be permitted to be
raised in review petitions. Even otherwise, there is no error apparent
on the face of record in the order under review warranting invocation of
review jurisdiction. Accordingly, the review petitions are dismissed at
the admission stage itself. No cost(s).
Sd/-
+0530 (Rajani Dubey)
JUDGE
AMIT PATEL
