Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Mannu Singh Bhadoriya on 7 March, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5217
1 RP-378-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 7 th OF MARCH, 2025
REVIEW PETITION No. 378 of 2025
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
MANNU SINGH BHADORIYA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri K K Prajapati - GA appearing on behalf of State.
Shri Narottam Sharma - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
There is a delay of 504 days in filing this Review Petition and
condonation whereof is being sought vide I.A.No.1750 of 2025.
2. Heard on I.A. as well as on merits.
3. Review of order dated 15.09.2023 passed in Writ Petition No.23910
of 2022 is being sought vide present review petition.
4. The said writ petition was disposed of in the following manner:
"4. Heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and
perused the record. Firstly, it is not a case where petitioner is claiming
promotion, therefore, the stand taken by the respondents on the face of
it, is misconceived. The claim of the petitioner is as regards conversion
of post of Lab Assistant to the post of Assistant Teacher and identical
issue was taken into consideration by this Court in the case of Ku.
Leena Sharma (supra). This Court vide order dated 11.11.2019 disposed
of the petition filed by Ku. Leena Sharma (supra) in following manner:-
By the instant petition, the petitioners are claiming that
respondents be directed to convert the post of Lab Assistant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5217
2 RP-378-2025
to the post of Assistant Teacher (Science). As per the
petitioners, they are working in a Government aided
institution. As per their contentions, the post of Lab Assistant
has been abolished in the Government institution vide
Annexure-P/9 and Lab Attendants are now treated to be the
Assistant Teachers. The petitioners are claiming that the
same benefit be also granted to the Lab Assistant working in
the Government aided institution and the said post be also
converted into the post of Assistant Teacher. On earlier
occasion, the State Government was directed to seek
instructions to apprise this Court about the current status of
the Lab Assistant working in the private institution but no
instructions have been received by the State. In the order
dated 22.08.2019, it was made clear that if the instructions
are not received then matter will be heard finally, therefore, it
is being heard finally. In view of the reply submitted by the
respondents No.4, 5 and 7, they have also filed document
showing that the State authorities sought details of Lab
Assistants working in Government aided institution response
to the same, information and details were supplied to the
State Government. It indicates that the stand of the State is
also clear to grant benefit to the petitioners as it has been
granted to the Lab Assistant working in a Government
institution. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a
decision reported in 1993 MPLJ 663 Suresh Kumar Dwivedi
Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., in which the
Division Bench has observed that the teachers working in a
Government aided institutions are at par with the teachers
working in the Government institution and they are also
entitled to get the same benefit. Relying upon the said
decision, the petitioners are also contending that they should
be treated as Assistant Teacher and their post of Lab
Assistant be also converted into the same. Learned counsel
for the petitioner further submits that in view of the rules
applicable to the petitioners, they are getting the pay scale of
Rs. 515-800 whereas in the rules available as Annexure-P-11
provides that the pay scale of Lab Assistant is 545-925,
which is equal to the pay scale of Assistant Teacher,
therefore, they are claiming that they be also granted the
same pay scale as is available to the Assistant Teacher
because that pay scale is similar to the pay scale of Lab
Assistant. In view of the above, it is appropriate that the
petition be disposed of directing the respondent No.2 to pass
appropriate order converting the post of Lab Assistant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5217
3 RP-378-2025
working in a Government aided institution to the post of
Assistant Teacher as has been done in respect of the Lab
Assistant working in a Government institution. The authority
will also pass an appropriate order in respect of granting the
pay scale, which is available to the Assistant Teacher in the
government institutions. While passing the order, the
authority shall take into account the law laid down by the
Division Bench in the case of Suresh Kumar Dwivedi. The
letter issued by the State Government converting the post of
Lab Assistant into the Assistant Teacher for the Government
organization dated 01.10.1987 (Annexure-P/9) and also take
into account the letter issued to the respondents No.4, 6 and
7. In response to which, they will supply the respective
information in respect of the Lab Assistant working in the
Government aided institution. The aforesaid exercise be
completed within the period of three months from submitting
the certified copy of the order and it is also directed to the
respondents to make appropriate payments for which
petitioners are entitled after converting their post to Assistant
Teachers. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is
disposed of.
5. The said decision of Ku.Leena Sharma (supra) has been
followed by this Court in W.P. No. 20621 of 2022 (Smt. Gayatri
Gour Vs. State of M.P. & others) and the order therein has also
been implemented.
6. The order passed in Ku. Leena Sharma (supra) has undisputedly
been implemented and on the basis of the order passed in Ku.
Leena Sharma (supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Smt. Gayatri Gaur (supra) has again directed the
respondents to ensure compliance of the order passed in the case
of Ku. Leena Sharma mutatis mutandis in the case of Smt. Gayatri
Gaur (supra). The State in compliance of the order passed in
Gayatri Gaur (supra) has also conferred the benefit to the
petitioner therein and the order passed by this Court has already
been complied with. Therefore, this Court does not find any good
or bad reason to take a different view inasmuch as, in the cases of
similarly situated employees, this Court has already decided the
issue and the Government has also implemented the orders of this
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5217
4 RP-378-2025
Court without assailing the said order before the Division Bench in
writ appeal.
7. Accordingly, the present petition also stands disposed of with a
direction that the order passed in W.P. No.19880/2016 (Ku.Leena
Sharma vs. The State of M.P.) dated 11.11.2019 shall apply
mutatis mutandis to the present case also.
8. Let exercise in terms of the order passed in W.P.
No.19880/2016 (Ku. Leena Sharma vs. The State of M.P.) be
completed within a period of 60 days from the date of production
of certified copy of this order."
5. Twin grounds which has been raised by the counsel for the
appellant/State are that judgment of Ku. Leena Sharma (supra) as relied by
this Court while disposing of the writ petition was quite distinguishable on
the facts and circumstances of the present case, as while passing the
aforesaid order, Court has not taken into consideration the rules which
prescribes the minimum qualifications for appointment on the post of Lab
Assistant and this Court while applying its ratio mutatis mutandis over the
present case had disposed of the petition without going into the merits and as
reply was not filed on behalf of State though notices were served, the correct
and legal possession and entitlement of the petitioners could not be brought
to the notice of this Court and out of the four persons in whose favor the
order has been passed, two persons were not possessing minimum requisite
qualifications, therefore, they are not entitled for the benefit which has been
directed to be issued in their favor, therefore, the order dated 15.09.2023
deserves to be recalled and the petition is required to be heard on its own
merits.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5217
5 RP-378-2025
6. In contrast to the aforesaid argument when the the record of the writ
petition was seen, this Court observes that on 27.10.2022 notices were issued
on payment of process fee which were served on the P.S. School
Education/respondent no.1 on 29.11.2022, on Commissioner Public
Instructions/respondent no.2 on 24.11.2022 and on Shri Ripudaman Singh
Bhadoria/respondent no.3 on 22.11.2022. Thereafter the matter was listed on
15.09.2023 i.e after approximately one year from the last listing, but during
the said period even after getting more than 10 months, the respondents didn't
cared to file reply to the petition and bring their contentions on record and
even on 15.09.2023, when the matter was finally heard, the counsel for the
State participated and argued the matter and had sought time for reply or had
not raised the ground which has been argued in the review petition. Apart
from the aforesaid factual aspect the ground which has been raised by the
present petitioner/State is touching the merits of the matter which cannot be a
ground for review.
7. Here it would be useful to refer the decision of the Apex Court in
the matter of Perry Kansagra vs Smriti Madan Kansagra reported in 2019
(20) SCC 753, wherein it has been observed that while exercising the review
jurisdiction in an application under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of CPC
the Court does not sit in appeal over its own order and re-hearing of matter is
impermissible in law and the hon'ble Court was pleased to lay down the
following principles relating to exercise of review jurisdiction:-
(i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to
be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5217
6 RP-378-2025
1 CPC.
(ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or
error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the
face of record must be such an error which must strike one
on mere looking at the record and would not require any
long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there
may conceivably be two opinions.
(iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that
the decision was erroneous on merits.
(iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient
reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of
fact or law by a court or even an advocate.
(v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of
invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit."
8. It would also be useful to refer the decision of Apex Court in the
matter of Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. Vs. Assam SEB reported in (2020) 2
SCC 677, wherein the hon'ble Court has observed and held that the scope of
review under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC is limited and
under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and
reargue questions which have already been addressed and decided. It was
further observed that an error which is not self-evident and has to be detected
by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the
face of the record justifying the Court itself to exercise its power of review
to be exercised under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC .
9. On appreciation of the aforesaid decisions and the facts of the
present case, this Court finds that a conclusion based upon another decision
of similarly situated persons, cannot be assailed in review petition unless it is
shown that there is an error apparent of the face of the record in considering
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5217
7 RP-378-2025
the said preposition or for some reason akin thereto.
10. It has not been argued before this Court that there is an error
apparent on the face of the record rather the argument is that the while
passing order in the case of Ku. Leena Sharma (supra), this Court has not
taken into consideration rules which prescribes the minimum qualifications
for appointment on the post of Lab Assistant, therefore, the facts of that case
were distinguishable and were not applicable to the present case.
11. According to this Court, the aforesaid error is not self-evident and
has to be detected by process of reasoning which in the light of the judgment
of the Apex Court in the matter of Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. (supra) can
hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the
court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
12. It is also settled law that in exercise of the review jurisdiction, the
Court cannot reappreciate the evidence to arrive at a different conclusion,
even if two views are possible in the matter.
13. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record,
this Court doesn't find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order
herein nor there is any error apparent on the face of record, which could be
pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, as no any ground as mentioned
under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC has been taken or has been demonstrated in the
present petition which could entail this Court to recall or review the order
impugned.
14. It would be profitable to quote Order 47 Rule 1 CPC:-
''(1) Application for review of judgment.- (1) Any person
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5217
8 RP-378-2025
considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from
which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has
been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no
appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a
Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new
and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of
due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be
produced by him at the time when the error apparent on the
face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires
to obtain a review of the decree judgment to the Court which
passed the decree or made the order. (2) A party who is not
appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of
judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by
some other party except where the ground of such appeal is
common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being
respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on
which he applied for the review. [Explanation.- The fact that
the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of
the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the
subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case,
shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.]"
15. Order 47 Rule 1 CPC specifically lays down that whenever there is
discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, even after the
exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or
could not be produced by him at the time or when the error is apparent on the
face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a
review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a
review. No new discovery or important matter or evidence has been brought
on record which even after due diligence was not within his knowledge or
could not be produced by them at the time when the order was passed, no
mistake or error apparent on the face of the record could be pointed out and
also no any other sufficient reason was brought before this Court
which would compel this Court to review the order impugned.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5217
9 RP-378-2025
16. It is also not the case that there was total misreading of the
admitted material on record, rather, the order is based upon the actual facts
and law, therefore, according to this Court, the grounds raised manifestly
don't come within the purview of connotation of expression "discovery of
new facts" or "error apparent on the face of record" or such it may be
constituted to be founded on any other sufficient reason, therefore, the
present review petition being devoid of any substance deserves to be
dismissed.
17. In Board of Control of Cricket India Vs. Netaji Cricket Club (AIR
2005 SC 592), it is observed that "the words "sufficient reason" occurring in
rule 1 is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or
even an advocate. An application for review may be necessitated by way of
invoking the doctrine 'actus curiae neminem gravabit'".
18. Similarly, in Union of India Vs. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd., (AIR
2008 (Gau) 161), it is observed that the review is not an appeal in disguise.
The scope of review as well as the appeal is completely different. While the
review petition is limited the appellate jurisdiction is wide. In Akhilesh
Yadav Vs. Vishwanath Chaturvedi & Ors. reported in (2013 AIR SCW
1316), the Apex Court held that scope of review petition is very limited and
submissions made on questions of fact cannot be a ground to review the
order. It was further observed that review of an order is permissible only if
some mistake or error is apparent on the face of the record, which has to be
decided on the facts of each and every case. Further held that an erroneous
decision, by itself, does not warrant review of each decision.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5217
10 RP-378-2025
19. The scope of review of an order by a Court of Civil Judicature, is
circumscribed by Section 114 of the Code which provides that a review of an
order is permissible upon a discovery of new and important matter of
evidence.
20 But in the present case no new and important matter has been
brought before the Court by the petitioners. It is also well settled that only
errors apparent on the face of record are liable to be reviewed and such errors
must state one in the face where no elaborate arguments are necessary to pin
point those errors. (See Abhijit Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Terai Tea
Company Pvt. Ltd. (AIR 1995 Cal 316).
21. In the light of above discussion, it is well settled principle of law
that the scope of review is very limited and there seems to be no error
apparent on the face of record in the impugned order passed by this Court.
The arguments so made by the counsel for the State are on merits, which
could have been assailed by the petitioner/State in Writ Appeal, no
ingredients of Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of CPC are made out for
reviewing the impugned order.
22. So far as argument that out of the four persons in whose favor the
order has been passed, two persons were not possessing minimum requisite
qualifications, therefore, they are not entitled for the benefit which has been
directed to be issued in their favor is concerned, the said argument was not
advanced at the time of hearing of the writ petition, therefore, it cannot be a
ground for review as the said ground is not covered under the four corners of
Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of CPC.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5217
11 RP-378-2025
23. Consequently, on the basis of aforesaid discussion and taking into
consideration the settled principal of law, no case for reviewing the order
dated 15.09.2023 passed in Writ Petition No.23910 of 2022 is made out.
24.. Accordingly, this review petition fails and is hereby dismissed
both as barred by limitation and on merits.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
Chandni
