Trilok Chand vs Union Of India & Others
2010 Latest Caselaw 2818 Del

*                IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                      CM No.7148/2010 & R.A.No.222/2010
                                        In
                             W.P.(C) No.13857/2009
%
                              Date of Decision: 28.05.2010

Trilok Chand                                                   .... Petitioner
                         Through Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate.

                                          Versus

Union of India & others                                      .... Respondents
                   Through Nemo.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

1.     Whether reporters of Local papers may be                YES
       allowed to see the judgment?
2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?                  NO
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported                 NO
       in the Digest?



ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

CM No.7148/2010

This is an application by the petitioner/applicant for condonation

of delay in filing the application for review of order dated 15th December,

2009. The petitioner/applicant has sought condonation of delay in filing

the review application on the ground that he was not in Delhi, and

therefore, he could know the order and only in last week of December,

2009 he came to know about the order. Despite repeated requests to his

counsel, he could not get the order and finally he obtained the order

from Internet.

The petitioner/applicant contended that he approached another

lawyer who took time to first prepare the Special Leave Petition.

However even the Special Leave Petition was not filed, and therefore, the

petitioner/applicant approached the earlier lawyer against who

thereafter prepared the present application for review which was

thereafter filed by him without any further delay.

For the reasons stated in the application, there is a sufficient

grounds for condonation of delay in filing the review application and

therefore, it is allowed and delay in filing the application for review of

order dated 15th December, 2009 is condoned.

R.A.No.222/2010

The petitioner/applicant has sought review of the order dated 15th

December, 2009 on the ground that there were vacancies, however, the

vacancies were not released and were released later on, and therefore,

the petitioner/applicant is entitled for consideration of his request for

appointment on compassionate ground towards the vacancies which

were released later on.

The Tribunal while dismissing the petition of the

petitioner/applicant against which writ petition being W.P.(C) No.13857

of 2009 was filed which was dismissed by order dated 15th December,

2009, had noted that admittedly no vacancies were available during the

year 2002-03. If there were vacancies in year 2002-03, but which were

not released for administrative reasons or any other reasons, on release

of such vacancies next year, the petitioner/applicant cannot contend

that he is entitled for consideration of those vacancies which were

released later on as the vacancies for the year 2002-03. The Tribunal

had noted that if subsequently vacancies were released in subsequent

year that could not give any right to the petitioner/applicant to seek

further consideration and had relied on a decision of a Co-ordinate

Bench in O.A.No.429/PB/2007.

This Court while dismissing the writ petition had also noted that

the petitioner/applicant was not eligible for appointment in the year

2000-01, as he had not even passed Bachelor Degree during those

years. Since the request of the petitioner/applicant for compassionate

appointment could be considered for three years only, therefore, after

the expiry of the father of the petitioner/applicant on 26th December,

2009, he could be considered during the year 2000-01; 2001-02 &

2002-03. This Court had also noticed that since the application of the

petitioner/applicant was for recruitment, the consideration had to be

during recruitment year and not during calendar year. Though the

petitioner/applicant has contended that there is an error apparent,

however, in the facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any

such error which is required to be corrected in exercise of its

jurisdiction for review of the order.

The review proceedings have to strictly confine to the ambit and

scope of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under the

said Order judgment may be opened to review, inter-alia, if there is a

mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is

not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can

hardly be said to an error apparent on the face of the record justifying

the Court to exercise its power of Review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of

the Code of Civil Procedure. It is no more res integra that in exercise of

jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it

is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and

corrected, as a review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be

allowed to be an appeal in disguise. A Review cannot be sought merely

for fresh hearing, or arguments or correction of an erroneous decision

taken earlier. The power of review has to be exercised only for correction

of a patent error of law or fact which stays in the place without any

elaborate argument being needed for establishing it.

In the entirety of the facts and circumstances, therefore, there are

no such patent error in the order impugned before us which requires to

be corrected in exercise of jurisdiction of power of review by this Court.

Consequently, the application of the petitioner/applicant is without any

merit and it is liable to be dismissed. The application, therefore, is

dismissed, however, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

MAY 28, 2010                                         VIPIN SANGHI, J.
'VK'