Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kailash Singh vs Rashtriya Anusuchit Jati Aayog Bharat ... on 29 May, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 29 th OF MAY, 2024
REVIEW PETITION No. 592 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
KAILASH SINGH S/O SAHAB SINGH, AGED ABOUT 57
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: THE THEN CASH CUM
ACCOUNTANT CLERK BANK OF INDIA MAHIDPUR
BRANCH UJJAIN R/O 365 PASHCHIMPURI AGAR (UTTAR
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI K. K. GUPTA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
1. RASHTRIYA ANUSUCHIT JATI AAYOG BHARAT
SARKAR RASHTRIYA ADHYAKSH MAHODAY 5
LOKNAYAK BHAWAN KHAN MARKET NEW
DELHI (DELHI)
2. MAHA PRAVANDHAK ( H.R.) BANK OF INDIA
PRADHAN KARYALAYA-STORE HOUSE, C-5 'G'
BLOCK, KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (EAST)
(MAHARASHTRA)
3. AANCHALIK PRAVANDHAK BANK OF INDIA
AANCHALIK KARAYALAYA C-5, CHIPRA BIHAR,
NAGJHIRI, (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. MUKHYA PRABANDHAK BANK OF INDIA UJJAIN
SAKHA, UJJAIN C-5, CHIPRA BIHAR, NAGJHIRI,
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
This petition coming on for admission this day, Justice Sushrut Arvind
Signature Not Verified
Dharmadhikari passed the following:
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 30-05-2024
17:08:53
2
ORDER
Heard on the question of admission.
The present review petition has been filed seeking review of the order
dated 01.05.2024, passed in W.A. No.941/2024 whereby, the writ appeal was
dismissed.
2. Originally the petitioner had filed the writ petition bearing W.P.
No.6310/2024, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order
dated 18.03.2024. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed W.A. No.941/2024. The
said writ appeal was finally decided vide order dated 01.05.2024 by passing the
following order :-
1. Heard on the question of admission.
2. Writ Appeal filed under Section 2 (1) of the M.P. Uccha
Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal), Adhiniyam, 2005
assails the order dated 18.03.2024 passed in W.P.
No.6310/2024 by the learned Single Judge whereby the Writ
Petition has been dismissed.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was an
employee of Bank of India and his services were terminated
way back in the year 2001. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid,
the appellant has preferred W.P No.2537/2001 which was
dismissed vide order dated 13.12.2005. Again being aggrieved
by this order, the appellant filed W.A No.62/2006 which also
came to be dismissed on 25.04.2007 upholding the order of
termination.
4. The grievance of the appellant is that the respondents have
wrongly terminated the appellant and the Writ Court as well as
the Appellate Court has earlier not considered this aspect
therefore, he had filed a subsequent representation which has
also been dismissed. Against the dismissal of the subsequent
representation the Writ Petition was filed.
5. Learned Single Judge after considering the facts of the case
& also the fact that earlier the Writ Petition as well as the Writ
Appeal was dismissed wherein the same termination order
was challenged. Therefore, the list between the parties was
already over way back in the year 2007 and as such no case for
interference is made out.
6. We have considered and perused the record of the case. We
have find that earlier the same issue was already decided by
the Learned Single Bench as well as the Learned Division
Bench of this Court therefore, the learned Single Judge has not
committed any error apparent on the face of the record so as to
interfere with the order.
7. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal being bereft of merit and
substance is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court while
allowing the writ appeal had observed that the lis between the parties was
already over way back in the year 2007 and the same issue was already decided
by the learned Single Bench as well as the Learned Division Bench of this
Court.
4. It is well settled in law that in the guise of review, rehearing is not
permissible. In order to seek review the petitioner has to demonstrate that the
order suffers from error apparent on the face of record. The Court while
deciding the review petition cannot sit in appeal over the judgment passed by it.
The petitioner cannot be given liberty to readdress the Court on merits because
it is not an appeal in disguise where the judgment is to be considered on
merits.[See: J . R . Raghupathy Vs. State of A.P. (AIR 1988 SC 1681),
S.Bagirathi Ammal Vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission, (2009) 10 SCC
464 and State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and
Another, (2008) 8 SCC 612].
5. In our considered opinion, none of the grounds available for
successfully seeking review as recognized by Order 47 Rule 1 CPC are made
out in the present case. The Apex Court in the case of S. Bairathi Amaal Vs.
Plni Roman (2009) 10 SCC 464 has held that in order to seek review, it has
to be demonstrated that the order suffers from an error contemplated under
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC which is apparent on the face of record and not an error
which is to be fished out and searched. A decision or order cannot be reviewed
merely because it is erroneous.
6. In another case, the Apex Court in case of State of West Bengal Vs.
Kamal Sengupta (2008) 8 SCC 612 has held that "a party cannot be
permitted to argue de novo in the garb of review."
7. On perusal of the record and in the light of the judgments passed in the
case of S. Bairathi Amaal and State of West Bengal (supra), there is no
error apparent on the face of record warranting interference in the order
impugned.
8. The review petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to
cost.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
pn
