[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ravi Kant vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 29 November, 2025

                                          1

RA-CW-122
      122-2018 in CWP-25501-2012




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH


                                               RA-CW-122-2018
                                               in CWP-25501-2012
                                               Reserved on 20.11.2025
                                               Pronounced on: 29.11.2025
                                               Uploaded on:29.11.2025


Ravi Kant
                                                            .....Petitioner/Applicant
                                                                               licant
                                     VERSUS

State of Haryana and others

                                                                      .....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present : Ms. Tamanna Banwala and Ms. Bhoomika Bhardwaj, Advocates for Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate for the applicant in RA-CW-122-2018 in CWP--25501-2012.

Mr. Arun Singla, AAG, Haryana.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, BRAR J.

1. The present application is preferred under Order 47 Rule 1 of

the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying for review of judgment dated

14.02.2018 passed in CWP-25501-2012.

CWP

2. Briefly, the facts are that the applicant/petitioner completed

his ITI certification in the trade of electrician in 2007 from National

Industrial Training Institute (NITI), Rewari. Subsequently, he applied to the

post of Assistant Lineman with Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam

Limited (hereinafter 'Nigam').

). On 05.07.2012, the applicant/petitioner

1 of 6

RA-CW-122 122-2018 in CWP-25501-2012

appeared in the interview but was not selected. Thereafter, he approached

the Secretary, Haryana Staff Selection Selection Commission but received no clear

response. Consequently, he approached this Court by means of CWP CWP-25501 25501-

2012 which was dismissed dismissed vide judgment dated 14.0 14.02.2018.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the petitioner

completed his course course in the year 2007 while the NITI, Rewari was listed as

'bogus' by the State government in February, 2008. Further, vide judgment

dated 14.02.2018, this Court directed the Nigam to terminate services of

other appointed candidates who acquired their qualif qualification ication from an

unrecognised institution. However, no steps have been taken by the Nigam

to comply with this direction. In fact, three employees namely Satbir, Anoop

and Satish, who had also acquired their qualification from NITI, Rewari are

still working with DHBVNL under the stay granted by the High Court in

CWP Nos. 2642 2642-2015, 5145-2015, 2015, 2641 2641-2015.

2015. Lastly, the

applicant/petitioner has earned a fresh qualification from a recognised

institute i.e. Babu Jagjiwan Ram (Pvt.), ITI, Pataudi in June 2018. As suc such, h,

he may be allowed to join service by drawing a reference to Orissa Lift

Irrigation Corporation Ltd. vs. v . Rabi Sankar Patro and others 2017 (4)

SCT 683.

4. Learned counsel for non-applicant/respondents applicant/respondents submitted that

there is no occasion for review of judgment udgment ddated 14.02.2018 2.2018 as all the

relevant information had been considered therein. At the time of

2 of 6

RA-CW-122 122-2018 in CWP-25501-2012

consideration for recruitment in the year 2008, the credentials of the

applicant/petitioner included certification from NITI, Rewari, which is not a

recognised institution. As such, he was not eligible for recruitment and the

status of employment of Satbir, Anoop and Satish would not have any

impact on this fact. Further, subsequently acquired qualification in the year

2018 would also not make him eligible eligible retrospectively.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing

the record of the case, it transpires that is not the case of the petitioner that

the Court was deprived of some relevant information during the adjudication

process. The matter of similarly situated employees employees- Satbir, Anoop and

Satish already stands settled as the writ petitions preferred by them i.e. CWP

Nos. 2642-2015, 2015, 5145-2015 5145 and 2641-2015 2015 were dismissed vide judgment

dated 29.11.2025. Since the applicant/petitio applicant/petitioner ner did not satisfy the eligibility

criterion at the time of recruitment, no legal right is accrued in his favour to

demand consideration. Clearly, there is no apparent error in judgment dated

14.02.2018 owing to misconception of fact or law. As far as the matter of

weeding out unqualified employees in terms of the said judgment is

concerned, the same shall not come under the purview of review.

6. A two-Judge Judge bench of the Hon Hon'ble Supreme Court in Perry

Kansagra vs. Smriti Madan Kansagra laid down the parameters concerning

scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1. Speaking through Justice U.U. Lalit,

the following was observed:

3 of 6

RA-CW-122 122-2018 in CWP-25501-2012

"15.. As regards the first issue, relying on the decisions of this Court in Inderchand Jain (dead) through Lrs. v. Motilal (dead) tthroughhrough Lrs., (2009) 14 SCC 663, Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and others, 1999(4) S.C.T. 779 : (1999) 9 SCC 596 and Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others, 1997(4) RCR (Civil) 458 : (1997) 715, it was submitted by the appellant that the exercise of 8 SCC 715, review jurisdiction was not warranted at all. 15.1. In Inderchand Jain it was observed in paras 10, 11 and 33 are as under:-

under:

"10. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order.

11. Review is not appeal in disguise. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India, 2000(3) RCR (Civil) 252 : (2000) 6 SCC 224 this Court held: (SCC p. 251, para 56) "56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mi mistake stake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise."

*** *** ***

33. The High Court had rightly noticed the revie review w jurisdiction of the court, which is as under:

"The law on the subject subject-exercise exercise of power of review, as propounded by the Apex Court and various other High Courts may be summarised as hereunder:

(i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to bee strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 4747, Rule 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 drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions opinions.

(iii) Power wer of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits.

4 of 6

RA-CW-122 122-2018 in CWP-25501-2012

(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."

In our opinion, the principles of law enumerated by it, in the facts of this case, have wrongly been applied."

15.2. In Ajit Kumar Rath, it was observed:

observed:-

"29. In review proceedings, the Tribunal deviated from the principles laid down above which, we must say, is wholly unjustified and exhibits a tendency to rewrite a judgment by which the controversy had been finally decided. This, we are constrained to say, is not the scope of review under section 22(3)(f) (3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985............"

15.3. Similarly, in Parsion Devi the principles were summarized as under:

"9. Under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident 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 to exercise its power of review under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC.. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise".

7. In view of the discussion above, this Court does not find any

self-evident evident error in the judgment dated 14.02.2008 that would require

intervention by means of review. The applicant/petitioner can seek benefit of

the qualification acquired from a recognised institute in the year 2018 in any

future service opportunities but not retrospectively. Accordingly, the present

5 of 6

RA-CW-122 122-2018 in CWP-25501-2012

review application is dismissed.

8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands

disposed of.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE November 29, 2025 P.C

Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No