Delhi High Court
Winnie Sampson vs The Lt. Governor Of Delhi And Ors. on 2 May, 2017
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 509/2013
WINNIE SAMPSON .....Appellant
Through: Mr. M.C. Dhingra, Advocate.
Versus
THE LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS. ....Respondents
Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate for R-4
and R-5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
ORDER
% 02.05.2017
Rev. Pet. No. 168/2017 (by the petitioner for seeking review of the
order dated 07.03.2017)
1. This Review Petition has been filed by the appellant seeking
review of the order dated 07.03.2017, passed in LPA No. 509/2013. The
appeal was dismissed by holding as under:-
"13.The record shows that the appellant had
requested the respondent to sanction her a period of
four years for obtaining the academic qualification
i.e( BA & B.Ed.). At this juncture, we are of
considered opinion that when the appellant was asked
to complete the requisite two years diploma in N.T.T
within a period of 2 years w.e.f 1.07.1995 she should
have started the course with immediate effect that too
in the training required of her to keep the post
secured. Additionally, it is pertinent to state that the
appellant never challenged this Memorandum of
September,1995.
14. From perusal of the record it appears that the
appellant was called upon to explain her illegal and
unauthorized absence from duties from 20.09.1993,
however owing to her non explanation and
resumption to the duties her services was abandoned
vide letter dated 24.12.1993.
15. Moreover, we find that in order to expect quality
work from students, asking the appellant to pursue the
diploma of two years would solely be for the welfare
of the children and thus we are in consonance with
the view taken by the learned Single Judge that there
was no gross illegality in requiring the appellant to
obtain two years NTT diploma.
16. There is no justifiable reason to interfere with the
finding of the Learned Single Judge. Resultantly, the
appeal being without any merit is dismissed. "
2. The appellant is seeking review of the order dated 07.03.2017, on
the grounds that the core issue involved in the Appeal was not decided as
the Assistant Teachers (Nursery) Recruitment Rules came into effect for
the first time in the year 2011, with a prospective effect whereas, she was
terminated from service in the year 1997; that no such qualification of
possessing a two year Diploma was prevalent at the time she was
appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the year 1987; and that no such
Recruitment Rules existing in the year 1987, were placed on record by
the respondents despite various orders of the Court.
3. To deal with the submissions made by the appellant, it is relevant
to peruse the order dated 14.09.2016, passed in LPA 509/2013, which
reads as under:-
"The Government of NCT will file an affidavit putting
on record the minimum eligibility requirement
prescribed by the Affiliating Board for nursery
teachers in the year 1987 and in case the Affiliating
Board had not prescribed any minimum eligibility
requirements, qualification, prescribed by the
Appropriate Authority, as mentioned in Sub-Section
(e) of Section 2 of the Delhi School Education Act,
1973. The said affidavit will be filed by the
Government of NCT of Delhi within a period of 4
weeks. If required and necessary, the Govt. of NCT of
Delhi will get in touch with the schools which were in
operation and were having nursery classes in the year
1987, to get a copy of the applicable eligibility
requirements."
4. A bare perusal of the above said order shows that the respondents
were directed to file a specific affidavit with regard to the minimum
eligibility requirement prescribed by the Affiliating Board for nursery
teachers in the year 1987. Thereafter, pursuant to the directions of the
Court issued vide order dated 14.09.2016, the respondents No. 1 to 3 had
filed an affidavit placing on record, the Recruitment Rules to the post of
Assistant Teacher (Nursery), issued vide Notification dated 25.09.1976.
The Notification dated 25.09.1976 prescribed the essential and other
qualifications for the said post as under:-
"Essential:
(1) Higher Secondary School Certificate or equivalent.
(ii) Nursery Teachers Training Certificate from a
recognised Institution or equivalent."
5. It is evident that the Nursery Teachers Training Course which is for
a period of two years, was prevalent since the year 1976 and therefore,
would also apply to the case of the appellant, who was appointed as an
Assistant Teacher on 29.04.1987 and was terminated from service on
01.07.1997.
6. Admittedly, in the present case, the appellant had only completed a
one year Diploma course and that too in "Child Education" and had failed
to obtain a two year Diploma course in "Nursery Teachers Training",
being the requisite qualification, as directed by the School authorities. It
is the Memorandum of September, 1995 by virtue of which, the School
authorities had directed the appellant to obtain the two year Diploma
course in "Nursery Teachers Training" within two years. It is also
relevant to note that the validity of the said Memorandum of September,
1995 by which the appellant was aggrieved, was never challenged by her
before the Court.
7. Moreover, the scope of a review application is fairly limited. We
cannot re-hear the appeal that was dismissed on merits while,
adjudicating all the issues involved therein. A review application cannot
be treated as "an appeal in disguise". In the case of Thungabhadra
Industries Ltd. vs. Govt. of A.P. reported as AIR 1964 SC 1372, the
scope of a review petition was delineated by the Supreme Court in the
following words:-
"11. What, however, we are now concerned with is
whether the statement in the order of September 1959
that the case did not involve any substantial question
of law is an 'error apparent on the face of the record'.
The fact that on the earlier occasion the Court held on
an identical state of facts that a substantial question of
law arose would not per se be conclusive, for the
earlier order itself might be erroneous. Similarly, even
if the statement was wrong, it would not follow that it
was an 'error apparent on the face of the record', for
there is a distinction which is real, though it might not
always be capable of exposition, between a mere
erroneous decision and a decision which could be
characterised as vitiated by 'error apparent'. A
review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby
an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but
lies only for patent error."
8. In the case of Parsion Devi vs. Sumitri Devi reported as (1997) 8
SCC 715, the Apex Court had held as follows:-
"9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be
open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an
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 be an
error apparent on the face of the record justifying the
court to exercise its power review under Order 47
Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an
erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A
review petition, it must be remembered has a limited
purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in
disguise."
9. We are, therefore, of the view that none of the circumstances as
contemplated under Order XLIVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code
have arisen in the present case, nor do the grounds raised in the review
application entitle the appellant for a review. If the appellant is aggrieved
by the order dated 07.03.2017, she is at the liberty to seek appropriate
recourse in accordance with law.
10. Accordingly, in the light of the above, the review application is
dismissed.
HIMA KOHLI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
MAY 02, 2017
gr//
