Karnataka High Court
Sri C G Puttaswamy vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 January, 2021
Author: Alok Aradhe M.Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
REVIEW PETITION No.296 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
SRI C.G.PUTTASWAMY
S/O GAVIRANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
RESIDING NOW AT HALLI KARARA STREET,
BEHIND GIRL SCHOOL,
CHIKKANAYAKANA HALLI,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572214.
WAS WORKING AS SWEEPER,
IN THE OFFICE OF THE
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
C.N. HALLI POLICE STATION,
C.N.HALLI, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 117.
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. REVATHY ADINATH NARDE, ADVOCATE (VIDEO
CONFERENCING)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
2
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
TUMAKURU DISTRICT,
TUMAKURU - 572 102.
4. THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR
C.N. HALLI POLICE STATION,
C.N.HALLI,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 102.
... RESPONDENTS
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE
1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING THIS COURT TO 1.
REVIEW, ITS FINAL ORDER DATED 19/03/2020 PASSED IN WRIT
PETITION NO.52900/2018 (S- KAT) BY THIS COURT AS PER
ANNEXURE A; 2. GRANT SUCH OTHR RELIEF OR RELIEFS AS THIS
COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, NAGAPRASANNA J., MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The instant review petition is preferred by the petitioner in
W.P.No.52900/2018, whereby this Court by order dated 19.03.2020
dismissed the writ petition affirming the order passed by the
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Tribunal').
2. The review petitioner had filed the writ petition challenging
the order of the Tribunal dated 05.07.2018, whereby, the Tribunal
had declined to accept the claim of the review petitioner for
regularization of his services.
3. This Court by order dated 19.03.2020, after hearing the
respective learned counsel appearing for the parties observed on
consideration of the submissions of both the sides, that the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner was unable to point out any
statutory provision which permits the petitioner to claim
regularization who had been appointed as part time sweeper and on
considering the further submission of the petitioner, it was ordered
that the petitioner was at liberty to claim payment of salary as per
the pay scale recommended by the Director General of Police to the
Additional Chief Secretary, within three weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of the order in the writ petition. With the said
observation, the writ petition stood disposed.
4. The petitioner has filed the instant review petition seeking
to review the order dated 19.03.2020, contending that the order
suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record.
5. Heard Smt. Revathy Adinath Narde, learned counsel for
petitioner and perused the material on record.
6. Before we consider the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the review petitioner, it is germane to notice the scope
and parameters of review as held by the Apex Court in the case of
KAMLESH VERMA Vs. MAYAWATI reported in (2013) 8 SCC
320, wherein the Apex Court at paragraphs 20.1 and 20.2 has held
as follows:
"Summary of the principles
XXXXXXX
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 [(1921-22) 49 IA
144 : (1922) 16 LW 37 : AIR 1922 PC 112] and
approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios
Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius [AIR
1954 SC 526 : (1955) 1 SCR 520] 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. [(2013) 8 SCC 337 : JT (2013) 8 SC 275]
20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not
enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
(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.
The instant review petition will have to be considered on the
bedrock of the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in the
afore-extracted judgment of KAMLESH VERMA.
7. Learned counsel for the review petitioner would submit
that the petitioner was appointed against a sanctioned post through
the Employment Exchange and that being the entry of the
petitioner into service, he was entitled to claim regularization in
terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF
KARNATAKA VS. UMA DEVI (3) reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1,
and would contend that the denial of regularization was contrary to
law. Learned counsel would further contend that the petition was
not for seeking 'equal pay for equal work'.
8. The contention of the learned counsel with regard to the
claim of regularization is considered and turned down on the ground
that the petitioner was not able to point out any statutory provision
which permits the petitioner to claim regularization of the employee
who is appointed as part time sweeper. We do not find any error
apparent on the face of the record to review the order dated
19.03.2020. More so, in the light of the limited scope of review as
enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of KAMLESH VARMA
(supra) as the submissions now made would amount to a rehearing
of the writ petition in the guise of review.
9. In our considered view, there is no error apparent on the
face of the record in the order dated 19.03.2020. The review
petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
nvj
CT:MJ
