Dr. Kalapana Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 5629 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Dr. Kalapana Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 February, 2024

Author: Anand Pathak

Bench: Anand Pathak

                                    1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                    AT GWALIOR
                          WP No. 1107 of 2024
     (DR RASHMI CHAUDHARY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                          WP No. 7079 of 2023
     (DR. KALAPANA SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                          WP No. 7095 of 2023
      (DR. KRISHANA DUBEY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                          WP No. 864 of 2024
        (DR MANI TYAGI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                          WP No. 1108 of 2024
        (DR ANITA TOMAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                          WP No. 1109 of 2024
       (DR RASHMI SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                          WP No. 1977 of 2024
       (DR. MANJU MAHOR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                          WP No. 1978 of 2024
     (DR RAJ KUMAR SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                          WP No. 1980 of 2024
     (DR RANJANA CHAUHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

Dated : 23-02-2024
      Shri    Pratip   Visoriya    (W.P.No.1107/24,     W.P.No.1108/24,
W.P.No.1109/24, W.P.No.1977/24, W.P.No.1978/24, W.P.No.1980/24),
Shri R.P. Singh (W.P.No.7079/23 and W.P.No.7095/23) and Shri K.K.
Sharma (W.P.No.864/24) - Advocates for the petitioners.
      Shri MPS Raghuvanshi - Senior Advocate and Additional
Advocate General with Shri Neelesh Singh Tomar - Government
Advocate for respondents No.1&2/State.

Shri Ravindra Dixit - Advocate for respondents No.3&4.

1. Heard on I.A.No.1518/2024, an application for recall of the order dated 06-02-2024 passed by this Court in bunch of writ petitions

in which Writ Petition No.1107/2024 was the lead case.

2. Respondents No.3 and 4 (M.P. Public Service Commission) has filed this application for recall of the order dated 06-02-2024 passed in bunch of writ petitions in which Writ Petition No.1107/2024 (Dr. Rashmi Chaudhary Vs. The State of M.P. & Ors.) was the lead case. Separate applications have been filed in all the writ petitions, therefore, all these applications were heard analogously and decided by this common order. For convenience sake, facts of writ petition No.1107/2024 are taken into consideration, therefore, the application filed in writ petition No.1107/2024 by way of I.A.No.1518/2024 is taken into consideration.

3. Precisely stated facts of the case are that that petitioner is working as Guest Faculty against the post of Assistant Professor (Geography) in Higher Education Department. She acquired Ph.D. and passed National Eligibility Test (NET).

4. Respondents No.3 & 4 - M.P. Public Service Commission issued an advertisement on 30-12-2022 inviting applications for Assistant Professors on different disciplines in which last date was 19-03-2023. It appears that after last date for examination, some corrigendum was issued for including the information regarding State Eligibility Test (SET) vide corrigendum dated 18- 12-2023. In short, process is still in the initial stage.

5. On 05-10-2023 Higher Education Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh issued an order in which certain decisions were reflected regarding reservation and extension of limit for age

relaxation. Immediately thereafter on 06-10-2023, the said proposal as reflected in the order dated 05-10-2023 was finalized and it was clarified that Guest Faculty Teachers would be bestowed with benefit of age relaxation for maximum 10 years in which every academic session would fetch the benefit of one year each towards age relaxation.

6. Petitioner wanted to avail the said benefit but her examination papers were not accepted by the M.P. Public Service Commission, therefore, petitioner preferred writ petition No.1107/2024. Petitioner raised the point that purpose of circular is to grant benefit to the affected parties and therefore, on the basis of purposive interpretation, the present examination is also to be included and the benefit be extended to all the petitioners. Petitioner also referred the order dated 19-10-2023 passed by learned Division Bench at Principal Seat, Jabalpur in bunch of writ petitions in which Writ Petition No.3709/2023 (Dr. Rachna Agrawal & Anr. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) was the lead case. In the said case, learned Division Bench held that petitioners would be entitled to take benefits of the circular dated 06-10-2023 which is pivot of the dispute.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents/State has opposed the prayer and so is the case of respondents No.3 and 4 as Recruitment Agency.

8. After considering the rival submissions, this Court allowed all the writ petitions and found that extent of application of circular cannot be construed as three future examinations excluding the

present advertisement. Petitions were allowed and M.P. Public Service Commission was directed to open Online window for submission of examination forms of petitioners.

9. Respondents No.3 and 4/Selection Agency instead of complying the order, filed an application for recall of the order dated 06-02- 2024.

10. Learned senior counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2/State vehemently argued the case and submits that the order be reviewed because after passing of order dated 19-10-2023 by the learned Division Bench (at Principal Seat, Jabalpur), another order has been passed vide order dated 11-01-2024 by learned Division Bench in Writ Petition No.875/2024 (Raghvendra Kumar Mishra Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) in which it has been observed that circular dated 06-10-2023 is prospectively applicable. He regretfully informed this Court that the said order has not been placed before this Court at the time of arguments. Therefore, this order is placed now so that this Court can consider the same and pass an appropriate order.

11. Shri Raghuvanshi learned senior counsel for respondents No.1&2/State also reiterated the submission that circular dated 06-10-2023 issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh is prospective in nature and it excludes the present examination. No other interpretation can be made different to the said circular. He raised surprise over the concession of Government counsel earlier in order dated 19-10-2023 passed in writ petition No.3709/2023 and submits that perhaps exact effect of the said

concession is not comprehended at that point of time. Therefore, according to him, the order dated 06-02-2024 passed by this Court in bunch of writ petitions needs to be recalled. Therefore, the instant review application has been preferred.

12. Learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 - M.P. Public Service Commission Shri Ravindra Dixit also advanced the arguments in line of the arguments advanced by learned Additional Advocate General. According to him, order deserves to be recalled in the light of the different orders passed by learned Division Bench.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner opposed the said prayer and termed the review application as misconceived. According to him, review is not maintainable because respondents have remedy of writ appeal if they are aggrieved by the order dated 06-02-2024 passed by this Court. Placing reliance over the interpretation of circular dated 06-10-2023 is nothing but repetition of arguments.

14. It is further submitted that petitioner placed the order dated 19- 10-2023 passed by learned Division Bench at Principal Seat, Jabalpur in bunch of writ petitions in which Writ Petition No.3709/2023 was the lead case, in which learned Dy. Advocate General categorically showed the circular to the Court and made statement that certain age relaxation to the concerned persons have been given and learned Division Bench termed the said statement as redressal of grievances of those petitioners in the light of the said circular. Not only this, review petition was preferred before learned Division Bench for review of the order

dated 19-10-2023 (Writ Petition No.3709/2023) and incidentally the said review petition was dismissed by the same Bench vide order dated 18-12-2023 passed in Review Petition No.1312/2023. In the said review petition, respondents again submitted that the benefit of circular dated 06-10-2023 would be applied appropriately so far as petitioners were concerned. Those petitioners namely, Dr. Rachana Agrawal, Dr. Preeti Mishra and other similarly placed petitioners were also aged 52 years and 48 years and other petitioner Dr. Amita Pandey who was petitioner of Writ Petition No.1044/2023 is also 53 years old. Therefore, by the implication of said review petition, it can be safely inferred that intention of State Government was to grant benefit to the candidates like petitioners who are more than 48 years of age.

15. Not only this, another Division Bench at Principal Seat Jabalpur in case of Dr. Pushraj Singh and others in Writ Petition No.11403/2023 vide order dated 12-02-2024 passed the order in which considering the circular, disposed of the petition with liberty to the petitioners to avail the benefit of circular dated 06- 10-2023. Again the State counsel had no objection in this regard. When two Division Benches have applied their mind and passed the orders twice, then it is fallacy to interpret otherwise.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner also tried to justify the case on merits and arguments were repeated on merits. He prayed for rejection of review application.

17. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents appended thereto.

18. In the present case, respondents are seeking review by way of recall application. Arguments advanced by respondents are drenched in the same tenor and texure.

19. Scope of review is well defined. In the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and Others, (2013) 8 SCC 320, principles relating to review jurisdiction have been laid down.

The principles relating to review jurisdiction may be summarized as follows:

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 Vs. Neki, (1921-22) 49 IA 144 and approved by this Court in the case of Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos Vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius, AIR 1954 SC 526 to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule".

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 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 meres 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) Reviews is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived."

20. It is also held by the Apex Court in the case of State Of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sengupta & Anr., (2008) 8 SCC 612 that mistake or error apparent on the face of the record means that mistake or error which is prima facie visible and does not require any detail examination. Erroneous view of law is not a ground for review and review cannot partake the category of the appeal.

21. Here, in the present case it appears that this Court has applied its mind on merits and pressed into discussion about purposive interpretation of circular dated 06-10-2023 and passed a detail order. This Court does not intend to reventure into same arena lest

it would tantamount to review the order which otherwise in the present facts and circumstances of the case is barred by law.

22. Judgment/order passed by learned Division Bench of this Court is binding over the Single Bench. Profitable reliance over the guidance given by learned Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Jabalpur Bus Operators Association and others Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in (2003) 1 MPLJ 513 can be laid. Earlier order passed by learned Division Bench dated 19-10-2023 deserved to be followed by this Court specially when review of that order was also got dismissed vide order dated 18-12-2023 in Review Petition No.1312/2023 by the same learned Division Bench at Jabalpur. Both these orders were passed prior to passing of the order dated 11-01-2024 in Writ Petition No.875/2024 which is tried to be relied upon by counsel for the respondents. Although it is worth mentioning the fact that initially, only order dated 19-10-2023 passed in the bunch of writ petitions led by Writ Petition No.3709/2023 was shown.

23. In such conspectus of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court cannot entertain the application preferred by the respondents because it goes beyond any clerical/arithmetical mistake and enters into the realm of review. It amounts to reappreciation of judicial opinion given by this Court over a subject. Only learned Division Bench can reconcile the things not the Single Bench.

24. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the considered opinion of this Court, all the review applications preferred in all

the writ petitions likewise I.A.No.1518/2024 (W.P.No.1107/2024), I.A.No.1596/2024 (W.P.No.7079/2023), I.A.No.1595/2024 (W.P.No.7095/2023), I.A.No.1532/2024 (W.P.No.864/2024), I.A.No.1581/2024 (W.P.No.1108/2024), I.A.No.1517/2024 (W.P.No.1109/2024), I.A.No.1512/2024 (W.P.No.1977/2024), I.A.No.1519/2024 (W.P.No.1978/2024) and I.A,No.1514/2024 (W.P.No.1980/2024) stand dismissed.

                                                 (ANAND PATHAK)
Anil*                                                JUDGE

        ANIL KUMAR
        CHAURASIYA
        2024.03.02
        10:48:53
        +05'30'