Jharkhand High Court

Md. Sanawar Ali vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 May, 2023

                        1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
           Civil Review No.37 of 2019
                        -----

Md. Sanawar Ali, aged about 37 years old, son of Latif, resident of - Village - Sosokalan, P.O. - Soso Kalan, P.S. - Gola, District - Ramgarh, Jharkhand.

                                       ...    ...    Petitioner
                           Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. The Secretary, Department of Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa, H.E.C., District - Ranchi, Jharkhand.

3. The Director, Department of Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa, District - Ranchi.

4. The Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, Post Office and Police Station - Ramgarh, District - Ramgarh.

5. The District Education Officer, Ramgarh, Post Office and Police Station - Ramgarh, District - Ramgarh.

6. The District Superintendent of Education, Ramgarh, Post Office and Police Station - Ramgarh, District - Ramgarh.

7. The Officiating Headmaster, Soso Kalan High School, Soso Kalan, Post Office - Soso Kalan, Police Station - Gola, District - Ramgarh.

                                    ...  ...    Respondents
                            -------

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

-------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Arshad Hussain, Advocate For the Respondents : None

------

Order No. xx/Dated 5th May, 2023

The instant review has been filed whereby and

whereunder the order dated 21.01.2019 passed in W.P.(C)

No.6500 of 2018 has been sought to be reviewed on the

ground that there is no such policy decision of the State

and even if there is policy decision, the same will not be

applicable in the school in question, since the same is

minority school.

2. The fact leading to the filing of the writ petition is

that a communication dated 04.12.2018 was issued by the

District Superintendent of Education, Ramgarh in terms of

a direction issued by the Departmental Secretary, School

Education and Literacy Department, Government of

Jharkhand to declare Sunday as the weekly holiday in all

the Government schools and in case of its non-compliance,

the administrative action would be taken against the said

schools.

The case of the petitioner is that the said school is

dominated by the Urdu teachers and therefore Friday is the

ideal day for declaring weekly holiday but only on account

of complaint made by some people before the complaint cell

of the Chief Minister of the State, the departmental

Secretary has taken decision to close all the schools in the

State of Jharkhand declaring Sunday as the weekly

holiday.

It is the further case of the petitioner that there is

no justification in declaring the Sunday as the weekly

holiday so far as it relates to the schools where most of the

teachers are Urdu teachers.

3. After taking into consideration the fact that the

decision which was taken by the writ petitioner, who

happens to be minority school, to declare Friday as holiday,

has been negated by the writ Court.

Such decision was taken by the writ court on the

basis of the ground taken by the respondents that in view

of the general direction which is applicable within the

territory of the State of Jharkhand to have holiday on

Sunday. Such submission was made on the basis of the

decision taken by the State in this regard.

4. Mr. Arshad Hussain, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner, has submitted that even accepting that there

is a policy decision but the same will not be applicable to

the petitioner which is a minority institution and is to be

govern by its own bylaws/regulation.

5. The law is well settled regarding the power of review

as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and Anr. Vrs. Most Rev.

Mar Poulose Athanasius and Ors., reported in AIR 1954

SC 526 particularly at paragraph-32 which read 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 the case of Shivdev Singh Vrs. State of Punjab, reported in

AIR 1963 SC 1909, in a review petition filed under Order 47, Rule 1

C.P.C., 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 the case of

Sow. Chandra Kanta and Anr. Vrs. Sheik Habib, reported in 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. It appears from the argument advanced on behalf of

the petitioner seeking review of the order dated 21.01.2019

passed in W.P.(C) No.6500 of 2018 that the policy decision

as has been referred by the learned counsel appearing for

the State at the time of hearing of the writ petition, is not

being denied, rather, the denial is being made on the

ground that the said policy decision is not applicable to the

petitioner, who happens to be a minority institution.

The question is that whether a minority or any

nature of school can be considered to be outside the control

of the State Government?

7. This Court has taken a decision that Sunday since

has been decided to be a general holiday where is the

question to allow the petitioner, being a minority

institution, to take independent decision. This Court has

already taken a decision to that effect and no new ground

has been stipulated in the instant review application and,

as such, taking into consideration the scope of review, as

per the position of law, as has been held by Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case referred hereinabove, this Court is of the

view that it is not a fit case where the order dated

21.01.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.6500 of 2018 is to be

reviewed.