Gujarat High Court
District Primary Education Officer vs State Of Gujarat on 7 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1382/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 08/08/2025
Pronounced On : 07/11/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR REVIEW) NO. 1382 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7862 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DISTRICT PRIMARY EDUCATION OFFICER
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.JAYRAJSINH CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE WITH MR.UM SHASTRI(830) for
the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. DEVANSHIBA RANA, AGP for the Opponent(s) Nos.1,2
MR.MUNJAL BHATT, ADVOCATE WITH MS, SHAILEE S JOSHI(11582) for
the Opponent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms.Devanshiba Rana, learned
Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule
for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr.Munjal Bhatt, learned
advocate waives service of notice of rule for the Respondent
No.3.
2. The review petition has been filed by the District
Primary Education Officer, the Respondent No.3 in Special
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1382/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
Civil Application No. 7862 of 2011. By a detailed judgment
and order dated 09.05.2025, this Court had allowed the writ
petition wherein inter alia it was observed as under :-
"9. From the perusal of the orders dated 30.11.2011,
08.02.2012, 05.03.2012, 27.07.2016, 16.09.2016, 27.09.2016
and 20.03.2019, it is clear that for the last 14 years, in spite
of the specific orders of this Court, the Respondent no.3 has
neither complied with such directions nor has argued the
matter on merits. Today also, the Respondent no.3 is not
present in the Court through advocate. In the meanwhile, the
Petitioner who had filed the instant petition in the year 2011
would have superannuated in the year 2022. The narration of
the aforesaid events as encapsulated in great detail by the
preceding orders of this Court, portrays a shocking and
harrowing sequence of inaction and lack of empathy, which,
as recorded in the order dated 16.09.2016 (Coram: Hon'ble
Smt. Justice Abhilasha Kumari) "in the view of this Court, this
conduct does not behove the Respondents, who hold
responsible positions".
3. The present Review Application is therefore, nothing but
an attempt to argue the writ petition on merits and avail of
one more opportunity, which the Respondents, who at the
relevant stage had repeatedly declined to argue the matter on
merits or follow the simple directions of this Court but now,
having been saddled with exemplary costs have chosen to
wake up from their slumber, not unlike Rip Van Winkle.
4. Be that as it may, the main plank of arguments of the
instant Review Application are as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1382/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
4.1 The original petitioner was initially appointed as a
Primary Teacher in the year 1987 under the competent
educational authority. Subsequently, in view of administrative
exigencies, he came to be appointed on deputation as Cluster
Resource Centre (CRC) Coordinator on 19.08.1997. Owing to
subsequent administrative requirements, the petitioner was
repatriated to his parent cadre, i.e., Primary Teacher, by
order dated 29.05.1999. However, being desirous of
continuing as CRC Coordinator, the petitioner raised a dispute
by filing RCA No. 326 of 1999.
4.2 Pursuant thereto, the competent authority issued a
communication dated 29.10.2004 intimating the petitioner
that his deputation as CRC Coordinator stood cancelled and
directed him to resume duties forthwith in his substantive
post as Primary Teacher. A panchnama evidencing the said
fact was drawn on 01.11.2004. As the petitioner failed to
resume his duties at the place of posting and remained on
unauthorised and unsanctioned leave, he was treated as
absent from service.
4.3 Thereafter, the petitioner instituted Regular Civil Suits
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1382/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
being RCS Nos.326 of 1999 and 419 of 2004 before the
competent Civil Court, wherein his application for interim
relief under Exhibit '5' came to be rejected vide order dated
23.12.2004. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 126 of 2004. By order dated
09.02.2005, followed by order dated 11.02.2005, the
Appellate Court granted interim relief akin to the final relief
claimed, directing the petitioner to remain present in the
transfer camp.
4.4 Pursuant to such orders, the State Project Officer,
Gandhinagar, by communications dated 20.04.2005 and
18.06.2005, opined that the petitioner's appointment as CRC
Coordinator at a different cluster would not be in the interest
of the project. Consequently, a public notice issued in May
2005 informed all concerned that a transfer camp would be
organised on the specified dates. Despite being informed, the
petitioner failed to remain present at the scheduled transfer
camp, thereby continuing his unauthorised absence for
approximately 36 months (3 Years).
4.5 Consequently, a show cause notice dated 20.12.2007
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1382/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to resume duties
within seven days and to submit his explanation, failing which
disciplinary action would follow. Despite this, the petitioner
neither resumed duty nor offered a satisfactory explanation.
He was again advised to remain present at the transfer camp
on 29.04.2008, which he again failed to attend. The competent
authority, after following due process of law and considering
the prolonged unauthorised absence, terminated the services
of the petitioner vide order dated 13.02.2009. The petitioner
preferred a statutory appeal against the said termination
before the Tribunal on 24.03.2009. The appeal came to be
dismissed vide order dated 01.06.2009, thereby confirming
the order of termination.
4.6 Subsequently, the petitioner moved representations
dated 30.06.2009 and 05.12.2009 before the District Primary
Education Officer, and also preferred Special Civil Application
No. 9375 of 2010 before this Court, which was withdrawn on
27.08.2010 in view of the pendency of proceedings before the
statutory Tribunal. Thereafter, a representation dated
22.09.2010 was submitted by the petitioner seeking
reinstatement either as CRC Coordinator or as Primary
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1382/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
Teacher. The competent authority, after affording opportunity
of hearing on 24.02.2011 and considering the written
submissions tendered, rejected the representation vide order
dated 21.03.2011, which was communicated on 28.04.2011.
4.7 It is pertinent to note that the petitioner's deputation
was a temporary arrangement and, as per settled legal
principles and the provisions of the Gujarat Civil Services
Rules, 2002, an employee cannot continue on deputation
indefinitely. The employer retains administrative discretion to
repatriate an employee to the parent cadre as and when
required. Accordingly, the petitioner's repatriation in 2004 to
his substantive post of Primary Teacher was in consonance
with law.
4.8 It further transpires that from 2004 to 2009, the
petitioner was repeatedly instructed to join duties as Primary
Teacher and was called to attend transfer camps. The
petitioner, however, failed to comply and instead cited mental
illness as a reason for his absence without producing any
medical record or having sought sanctioned leave. His
prolonged unauthorised absence of about five years amounted
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1382/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
to conscious abandonment of service. Accordingly, the
disciplinary action culminating in termination of service was
justified and remains unchallenged in law, the orders of
termination having attained finality.
4.9 As regards the civil litigation, the petitioner had also
challenged the order of repatriation by filing an appeal before
the competent authority, which came to be dismissed on
09.05.2005. Alternatively, he instituted RCS No. 416 of 2004
before the Civil Court, which lacked jurisdiction under the
Primary Education Act. The learned Civil Court rejected his
application; however, in the appeal against rejection, the
learned District Court granted interim relief on 11.02.2005,
virtually amounting to a grant of final relief at the interim
stage. Eventually, the said civil suit came to be dismissed in
the year 2015, and the appeal thereagainst was also
dismissed, facts which were allegedly suppressed by the
petitioner in subsequent proceedings.
4.10 The impugned order dated 09.05.2025 passed in Special
Civil Application No. 7862 of 2011 with connected Civil
Application (for Amendment) No. 1 of 2024 is therefore
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1382/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
sought to be recalled and reviewed, with the following
prayers:-
"(A) To review the order and consequently modify the order
dated 09.05.2025 passed in Special Civil Application No.
7862 of 2011 and Civil Application (for amendment) No. 1 of
2024 in Special Civil Application No. 7862 of 2011 at
Annexure - A to meet with ends of justice;
(B) Pending the final adjudication of the lis be pleased to
suspend the operation, implementation and execution order
under reconsideration:
(C) Pass such other and further orders as may deem fit in the
interest of justice:"
5. On the other-hand, Mr.Munjal Bhatt, instructed by
Ms.Shailee S.Joshi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of
the original writ petitioner has argued that the law is well
settled that the scope of review jurisdiction is extremely
limited and circumscribed. Such jurisdiction may be exercised
by this Court only in cases where there exists an error
apparent on the face of the record. It is respectfully submitted
that, to the limited understanding of the answering
Respondents, no such apparent error has been demonstrated
or substantiated by the Applicant in the present proceedings.
On the contrary, the averments made in the review
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1382/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
application are primarily directed towards a re-agitation of
the merits of the main petition, which is impermissible in law
and falls outside the narrow compass of review jurisdiction.
5.1 It is further submitted that by way of the present
application, the applicant seeks to re-argue the entire matter
on merits, despite having failed to appear before this Court on
09.05.2025. The review mechanism cannot be invoked as a
means to reopen concluded proceedings or to obtain a second
adjudication on the same set of facts. It is pertinent to note
that the order dated 09.05.2025 was passed after taking into
consideration the previous orders of this Court, which have
attained finality, not having been assailed by the Applicant. In
absence of any demonstrable error in those orders, the
present attempt to reopen the same is wholly misconceived
and untenable in law.
5.2 It was mentioned that, without prejudice to the above,
the applicant has sought to contend that the responsibility to
make payment to the answering Respondents lies upon
Respondent No. 2, namely the Director of Primary Education,
Gandhinagar, and not upon the Applicant. In this regard,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1382/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
reliance is placed upon the order dated 11.02.2005 (Page
34/H of the main petition), wherein certain recommendations
were allegedly made to the Director, GCERT, Gandhinagar.
On this basis, it is urged that Paragraph '8' of the order dated
09.05.2025 contains an error apparent on the face of the
record.
5.3. It is further contended that Paragraph '9' of the said
order also suffers from an error, as the non-compliance, if any,
was attributable to Respondent No. 2 and not Respondent No.
3. The Applicant has additionally contended that since the
services of the answering Respondent stood terminated under
order dated 13.02.2009, which was subsequently affirmed by
the learned Education Tribunal on 21.03.2011, the
recommendations had become redundant and unenforceable.
Alternatively, it is alleged that the recommendations stood
nullified upon dismissal of the Respondent's suit on
31.01.2015.
5.4. Mr.Bhatt submitted that such a contention was never
raised in the main proceedings and cannot now be introduced
under the guise of review, particularly by producing
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1382/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
documents not forming part of the original record. The
attempt to introduce fresh evidence at this stage is
impermissible in law. The unexplained silence of the applicant
from 2015 till 2025 further disentitles it to any equitable
relief. Accordingly, it is humbly prayed that the present
review application be dismissed in limine, and that the
applicant be directed to forthwith comply with the order dated
09.05.2025.
6. The State of Gujarat has only pointed out its limited role
in the matter and submitted that the original petitioner was
appointed to service by the District Primary Education Officer,
who also exercised the authority to terminate his services. At
no point was the Director of Primary Education (Respondent
No.2) associated with or involved in either the appointment or
termination process. Accordingly, Respondent No.2 possessed
neither the jurisdiction nor any occasion to issue orders
relating to the petitioner's posting or transfer and further on
merits it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any
compensation, inasmuch as his services had already been
lawfully terminated by the competent authority, original
Respondent No.3, well before the initiation of the present
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1382/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
proceedings. It is then submitted that the role of Respondent
No.2 was purely formal and limited, also, there was neither
wilful disobedience nor any deliberate non-compliance on the
part of Respondent No.2.
7. The parameters of reviewing a decision have been
itemized in the State of West Bengal and Others Vs.
Kamal Sengupta and Another, reported in (2008) 8 SCC
612, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :-
"35. The principles which can be culled out from the above
noted judgments are:
(i) The power of the Tribunal to review its order/decision u/s
22(3)(f) of the Act is akin/analogous to the power of a Civil
Court u/s 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.
(ii) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the
grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise.
(iii) The expression "any other sufficient reason" appearing in
Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other
specified grounds.
(iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be
discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated
as an error apparent on the face of record justifying exercise
of power u/s 22(3)(f).
(v) An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in the
guise of exercise of power of review.
(vi) A decision/order cannot be reviewed u/s 22(3)(f) on the
basis of subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or
larger bench of the Tribunal or of a superior Court.
(vii) While considering an application for review, the Tribunal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1382/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
must confine its adjudication with reference to material
which was available at the time of initial decision. The
happening of some subsequent event or development cannot
be taken note of for declaring the initial order/decision as
vitiated by an error apparent.
(viii) Mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence
is not sufficient ground for review. The party seeking review
has also to show that such matter or evidence was not within
its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence,
the same could not be produced before the Court/Tribunal
earlier."
8. In Kamlesh Varma Vs. Mayawati and Others,
reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
reiterated the principles and the grounds on which the review
is maintainable and also the grounds on which the review is
not maintainable in the following terms :-
"Summary of the principles
20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of
review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:
20.1 When the review will be maintainable:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence
which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not
within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be
produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the
record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The words "any other sufficient reason" have been
interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki and approved by this
Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar
Poulose Athanasius to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds
at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same
principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur
Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd.
20.2 When the review will not be maintainable:
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not
enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1382/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the
original hearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material
error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines
its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise
whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and
corrected but lies only for patent error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject
cannot be a ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record
should not be an error which has to be fished out and
searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully
within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be
permitted to be advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief
sought at the time of arguing the main matter had
been negatived."
9. Keeping the aforesaid principles in mind, it is clear that
the review-applicant has placed its case in review as if the
writ petition is sought to be argued on merits for the first time
before this Court. The reasons for which the review applicant
failed to argue the writ petition, thereby suffering the
consequences in the order under review are neither germane
to the present application nor should such a brazen stand
which is akin to picking and choosing its own time to argue its
case should be entertained by this Court. Everything which
Mr.Jayrajsinh Chauhan, learned advocate has submitted are,
even according to him, matters of contemporaneous record
which he ought to have placed before the Court in the several
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1382/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
opportunities that he was presented with during the pendency
of the writ petition. Having failed so to do, as has been
documented in paragraph No. 9 of the judgment under
review, he must not be permitted in the interest of justice to
argue the writ petition by filing a review petition. Therefore, I
am of the opinion that there is no ground whatsoever upon
which the present review application can be held to be
maintainable. I am further fortified in my view because the
review applicant has accepted all the interim orders and their
attendant observations quoted in paragraph No. 9 of the
judgment under review and no appeal has been preferred
against any of the orders referred to in paragraph No. 9.
10. In the order dated 30.11.2011, passed in the writ
petition, it has been clearly recorded as under :-
"Considering overall facts and circumstances what
transpires is that the petitioner and the Respondent authority
both have not addressed the issues and subject matter in
proper perspective. It may be true to some extent that the
petitioner had not complied with order of the authority which
was passed in 2004 but at the same time the remedy was
taken by the petitioner were he had approached the
Court, in which, recommendations were made by the
District Court in favour of the petitioner to transfer
him at nearby place where the wife of the
petitioner was serving in the District itself. Even later on
when the petitioner came to be dismissed from
service on the ground of noncompliance of the order, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1382/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
'Tribunal' constituted under the Act had also decided and
resolved that if the petitioner was ready and willing to serve
as a primary teacher his case was to be recommended
through Director through State Government. When learned
Single Judge of this Court had issued direction in a writ
petition filed by the petitioner to see that the Tribunal may
enforce the order as above, by the second order which is
impugned in this petition virtually the Tribunal had exercised
the power of review which is not permissible and the Tribunal
could not have acted beyond the directions given by this
Court in the writ petitions filed by the petitioner with a
prayer to comply that the earlier order of the Tribunal dated
1st June, 2009.
In the backdrop of facts, learned AGP to seek
instruction from the authority about posting the
petitioner as a teacher in Panchmahal District.
Stand over to 7th December, 2011"
11. Therefore, all that has been submitted on merits by the
review applicant-Respondent No.3 in the writ petition was
duly considered by this Court and therefore, also on merits,
nothing was left to be argued except to comply with the
directions issued repeatedly by this Court, to which the
Respondents did not have the courtesy to even respond. It is
quite understandable that the writ petitioner's suit came to be
dismissed after remaining pending for ten years during which
numerous orders came to be passed by this Court inspite of
which, as noted above, the writ petition was neither argued
nor the directions passed by this Court obeyed by the
Respondents. Therefore, the dismissal of the suit during the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1382/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
pendency of the writ petition cannot be fatal to the
petitioner's case. This exercise in ascertaining the merits of
the case is being done to prima facie satisfy to conscience of
this Court that no interest of justice will be sub-served in
reviewing/recalling the judgment and order under review. The
deliberate and wilful attempt on the part of the Respondents
to tire out the petitioner to make the writ petition infructuous
by efflux of time by stonewalling the proceedings with
impunity is good enough ground to award exemplary damages
to the writ petitioner in exercise of the inherent powers of this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, even without
formally setting aside the termination order which came to be
challenged in the writ petition.
12. At the same time, I understand that the financial burden
judgment under review has shaken the review applicant to the
point of to eventually turn up in the Courtroom to finally plead
case and assist the Court in reaching at some conclusion, a
boundant duty both of the party as well as the officer of the
Court who was representing the party. Therefore, giving due
consideration to the entire consepectus of even and possible
hardship that may befall the review applicant in implementing
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1382/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
the judgment under review, I deem it appropriate to reduce
the compensation payable to the writ petitioner from
Rs.50,00,000/- to Rs.25,00,000/-. At the same time, for
reagitating the issues which ought to have been raised in the
writ petition in the present review application and having
argued the writ petition for the first time in these
proceedings, I impose further costs of Rs.1,00,000/- upon the
review applicant which shall be paid to the Panchmahal
District Court Advocate's Library within a period of four
weeks from the date of uploading of the order. The judgment
and order 09.05.2025 is hereby modified to the aforesaid
extent. Rule is discharged.
(D.N.RAY,J)
BINA SHAH
