Jharkhand High Court
Sarita Kumari vs Omkar Ram Son Of Sri Ram Bachan Ram on 1 May, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No.484 of 2018
------
Sarita Kumari, aged about 47 years, wife of Prabhat Kumar presently
residing in the house of Sri Kapildeo Prasad Singh, Behind 56-Set
Colony, Beside Babu Colony, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District-
Ranchi .... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Omkar Ram son of Sri Ram Bachan Ram, resident of Road No.5,
New Colony, Krishnapuri, P.O. & P.S.-Chutia, District-Ranchi.
2. Seema Singh, wife of Sri Chhabi Nath Patel, Resident of C/o
Abhimanyu Prasad, Road No.1, Krishnapuri, P.O. & P.S.-Chutia,
District-Ranchi.
.... .... Writ Petitioners/Respondents
3. The State of Jharkhand.
4. The Director, Primary Education, School Education and Literacy
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand having its office at Telephone
Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, Disrict-Ranchi.
5. The District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi, having its office
at Court Compound, P.O. G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi.
6. The Secretary/Head Master, Kshitish Deaf and Dumb Primary
School, Niwaranpur, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi.
7. The State of Bihar through The Principal Secretary, Primary
Education, Patna
8. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
.... .... Respondents/Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Nitish Krishna, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Priti Priyamyada, AC to GP-V
For the State of Bihar : Mr. S.P. Roy, GA
------
17/Dated: 01.05.2023
The instant appeal being L.P.A. No.484 of 2018 has been filed
against the order dated 29.06.2018 passed by the review Court in Civil
Review No.02 of 2018.
2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant, namely, Sarita
Kumari, who had participated in the examination along with the private
respondents of L.P.A. No.484 of 2018 and L.P.A. No.20 of 2020,
namely, Omkar Ram and Seema Singh but the appellant has not finally
been selected and appointed.
3. Admittedly herein, two vacancies were there, against which, the
private respondents of L.P.A. No.484 of 2018 and L.P.A. No.20 of 2020,
namely, Omkar Ram and Seema Singh have been selected and
appointed. The other candidates who had been found to be below in
the selection list, is the appellant who has not been selected and
appointed.
4. The appellant has taken no ground challenging the very selection
list, wherein, the appellant has been put, in order of merit, below the
private respondents of L.P.A. No.484 of 2018 and L.P.A. No.20 of 2020.
But even then, the review has been filed and the learned Single Judge
while dealing with the same, has dismissed the said review on the
following grounds, i.e.,
(i) The writ petitioner was not a party in earlier Writ Petition
No.2615 of 2017.
(ii) Prima-facie, no case is made out for review/recall.
(iii) No apparent illegality has been shown
(iv) Factual aspect of the case has not been denied.
5. The order passed by the review Court, according to our
considered view, cannot be said to suffer from an error due to the
settled position of law regarding the scope of review Court in exercise
of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as has
been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Moran Mar
Basselios Catholicos and Anr. v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose
Athanasius and Ors., [AIR 1954 SC 526], particularly at paragraph-32
which reads as hereunder:-
"32. Before going into the merits of the case it is as
well to bear in mind the scope of the application for
review which has given rise to the present appeal. It
is needless to emphasis that the scope of an
application for review is much more restricted than
that of an appeal. Under the provisions in the
Travancore Code of Civil Procedure which is similar
in terms to Order XL VII, Rule I of our Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, the Court of review has only a
limited jurisdiction circumscribed by the definitive
limits fixed by the language used therein. It may
allow a review on three specified, grounds, namely
(i) discovery of new and important matter or
evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence,
was not within the applicant's knowledge or could
not be produced by him at the time when the decree
was passed, (ii) mistake or error apparent on the
face of the record and (iii) for any other sufficient
reason."
In Shivdev Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others
[AIR 1963 SC 1909], the Supreme Court held that the power of review
of its own order by the High Court inheres in every Court of plenary
jurisdiction, to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and
palpable errors committed by it. In doing so, the Court was only
upholding the principles of natural justice. This decision indicates that
the Court's power of review while exercising jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution extends to correct all errors to prevent
miscarriage of justice. The judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in
Sow. Chandra Kante and Anr. v. Sheikh Habib [AIR 1975 SC 1500]
wherein it has been held that:-
"A review of a judgment is a serious step and
reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring
omission or patent mistake or like grave error has
crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. A mere
repetition through different counsel of old and
overruled arguments, a second trip over
ineffectually covered ground or minor mistakes of
inconsequential import are obviously insufficient."
6. This Court, on the basis of the settled position of law, as referred
hereinabove and coming back to the order passed by the learned
Single Judge is of the view that it is not a case where the power of
review is to be exercised due to the reason that the learned Single
Judge has considered the reason of declining the review petition, i.e.,
(i) the writ petitioner was not a party in earlier Writ Petition No.2615 of
2017, (ii) prima-facie, no case is made out for review/recall, (iii) No
apparent illegality has been shown and (iv) factual aspect of the case
has not been denied and if on that pretext, the review has been
dismissed, the same according to our considered view, cannot be said
to suffer from an error.
Otherwise also, the State has challenged the order dated
05.09.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S)
No.2615 of 2017 in L.P.A.No.581 of 2017, against which, the review
petition filed, has been declined to be interfered with by this Court vide
order dated 29.06.2018 and the order of the learned Single Judge,
which is the subject matter of the instant appeal, has been affirmed by
this Court, therefore, on this ground, the instant appeal is fit to be
dismissed.
7. Accordingly, the instant intra-court appeal stands dismissed.
8. In consequence to dismissal of this appeal, pending interlocutory
application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Subhash Chand, J.)
Rohit/-N.A.F.R.
