Institute Of Banking Personnel ... vs Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 12260 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 170/2022

Institute Of Banking Personnel Selection, Ibps House, 90 Feet, D.p. Road, Near Thakur Polytechnic, Off. Western Express Highway, P.b. No.8587 Kandivali (E), Mumbai Through Its Chairman.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Head Office Presently Situated At Plot No. 2343, 2Nd Floor, Aana Sagar Circular Road, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer Through Its Chairman.

2. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Head Office Presently Situated At Tulsi Tower, 9Th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, 342003 Through Its Chairman.

3. Pooja Varshney D/o Rakesh Varshney, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of H. No. 1206, Mahaveer Nagar 2Nd Kota, Rajasthan.

4. Prakash Meena S/o Rameshwar Prasad Meena, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of H. No. 120, Prem Nagar, Jagatpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

5. Rahul Jain S/o Ashok Kumar Jain, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of H. No. 4, Akshardham Colony, New Housing Board, Banswara, Rajasthan.

6. Yogendra Singh Khangaroot S/o Bhanwar Singh Khangaroot, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Ward No.13, Gulabpura, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

7. Mahendra Kumar Prajapat S/o Gautam Lal Prajapat, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Near Bsnl Office, Fatehnagar, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

8. Ashish Jatolia S/o Mahendra Jatolia, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of H.no. 494/31 Shanti Nagar, Malusar Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

9. Sushil Gupta S/o Jitendra Pal, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of 3 A Block, Ward No. 22, Near Bansal Diagnostic Centre, Raisinghnagar, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

10. Ankit Bhardwaj S/o Gopal Lal Sharma, Aged About 30

(2 of 8) [WRW-170/2022]

Years, Resident Of 110 Shyam Nagar, Choumu, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

11. Ramesh Kumar Saharan S/o Ramswaroop Saharan, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Ward 16 Rangeri Road, Sahawa, Taranagar, District Churu, Rajasthan.

12. Mamta Yadav D/o Prem Chand Yadav, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Ward No.12, B Sector, Kashipuram Colony, Dabla Road, Kotputli, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

13. Kavita Baroliya D/o Pukhraj Baroliya, Aged About 27 Years, R/o A-902, Chandravardai Nagar, Ajmer Rajasthan.

14. Vikas Kumar S/o Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Rashidpura, Via Khori Bari, Tehsil Dhod, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

15. Sandeep Kumawat S/o Mahaveer Prasad Kumawat, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Ward 15, Aagwari Road, Sirohi, Neemka Thana, Sikar, Rajasthan.

16. Bharatveer Chitara S/o Dhanraj Chitara, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of 454/18 Nala Bazar, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

17. Himmat Singh Shakhawat S/o Late Bhanwar Singh Shakhawat, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of H. No. 19, Basant Vihar Colony, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

18. Anubhav Soni S/o Ganesh Prasad Soni, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Ward 15, Subhash Colony, Nainwa, Bundi, Rajasthan.

19. Nitish Mishra S/o Gajanand Mishra, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of H. No. 172-A, Bharat Nagar, Old Abadi, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

20. Vishal Jain S/o Dinesh K Jain, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of H. No. 34, Matra Kripa, Gandhi Nagar, Beawar Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

21. Virendra Pal Singh Bhati S/o Nand Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Charpotiya, Post Potla Kalan Tehsil Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Ravi Bhansali, Sr. Adv. assisted
                                 with Mr. Vipul Dharniya
For Respondent(s)          :     --




                                        (3 of 8)                  [WRW-170/2022]


           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                   Order

13/10/2022

This review petition is filed by the applicant/respondent

No.3, Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) seeking

review of the order dated 18.08.2022 passed in D.B. S.A.W.

No.100/2022: Rahul Jain & Ors. vs. Baroda Kshetriya Gramin

Bank & Ors. by this Court whereby, the special appeal preferred

by the respondents/appellants was allowed.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that respondent No.3 i.e.

IBPS being a recruiting agency conducted selections against

vacancies pertaining to Officer Scale-II (General Banking Officer)

(GBO) pursuant to Common Recruitment Process for 43 Regional

Rural Banks (RRBs)-IX (CRP-RRBs-IX) initiated vide notification

dated 01.07.2020. The entire selection process attained finality on

03.02.2021 with the provisional allotment of candidates to the

participating RRBs. The Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank

(BRKGB) initially requested to notify vacancies of Officer Scale-II

(GBO), which were included in the questioned selection process,

however, vide letter dated 18.12.2020 BRKGB withdrew the

vacancies. Therefore, no candidate was provisionally allotted to

BRKGB on 03.02.2021. Later on, BRKGB vide another

communication dated 05.02.2021 asked IBPS to allot 126

candidates against the post of Officer Scale-II (GBO). The IBPS

declined the request so made by BRKGB. A direction was sought

by the appellants (respondent Nos.3 to 21) against IBPS to fill up

126 vacancies of Officer Scale-II (GBO) by allotting candidates as

(4 of 8) [WRW-170/2022]

per merit and preference to BRKGB. This court vide order dated

18.08.2022, allowed the special appeal. The operative portion of

order dated 18.08.2022 is reproduced below for ready reference:-

"In the light of above discussion, the special appeal is allowed. IBPS is directed to allot 126 candidates against the post of Officer Scale-II (GBO) to BRKGB in order of merit and preference. The seats falling vacant thereof due to aforesaid exercise in participating RRBs, shall be filled in by recommending suitable candidates to RRBs in order of merit and preference. The entire exercise indicated above shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of this order.

No order as to costs."

Mr. Ravi Bhansali, learned Senior Counsel appearing on

behalf of petitioner/respondent No.3 submitted that the Division

Bench in its order dated 18.08.2022 failed to consider that

candidates had already been provisionally allotted to RRBs,

therefore, direction to allot 126 candidates against the post of

Officer Scale-II (GBO) to BRKGB in order of merit and preference

will have serious repercussions as the entire process has to be

notified and the persons already working will be disturbed.

Learned counsel further submitted that re-allotment will

infringe the rights of the allotted candidates as they were not

party before this Court in the present litigation. Further, other 41

RRBs, NABARD (Regulator) and Bank of Baroda (sponsor bank)

ought to have been impleaded as party to the proceedings before

this Court.

Lastly, learned counsel submitted that BRKGB, after

provisional allotment to the RRBs on the basis merit-cum-

preference vide letter dated 05.02.2021, requested to allot 126

candidates against the post of Officer Scale-II (GBO). The revised

request made by BRKGB does not appear to be bona fide as it was

(5 of 8) [WRW-170/2022]

apparently made to safeguard its own employees who were

candidates for CRP-RRBs-IX.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Section 114 of CPC, the substantive provision dealing with

the ambit and scope of review reads as follows:

"Review:- Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved:-

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred;

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code; or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order, and the court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit."

Order 47 elucidates the grounds for filing a review

application, which is reproduced herein below for the sake of

ready reference

"1. Application for review of judgment - (1) Any person 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 decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error 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 of 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 applies for the review.

(6 of 8) [WRW-170/2022]

[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.]"

In the case of Sow Chandra Kante and Anr. v. Sheik

Habib reported in (1975) 1 SCC 674, Hon'ble the Supreme

Court held as under:

"A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility.. The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality."

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Col. Avtar Singh Sekhon vs

Union Of India reported in (1980) Supp SCC 562 observed

that review of an earlier order cannot be done unless the court is

satisfied that the material error which is manifest on the face of

the order, would result in miscarriage of justice or undermine its

soundness.

In the case of Lilly Thomas and Others v. Union of India

and Others reported in (2000) 6 SCC 224, Hon'ble the Supreme

Court was pleased to hold that the power of review can be

exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view.

Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute

dealing with the exercise of power.

In the case of Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Others

reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320, Hon'ble the Supreme Court

summarised the principles for exercising review jurisdiction as

below:

"20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:

(7 of 8) [WRW-170/2022]

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" has been interpreted in Chajju Ram vs. Neki, and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors. 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. & Ors.,. 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 re-heard 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."

In view of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it

can be safely concluded that a judgment is open to review if there

is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record but an

error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be

described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the

court to exercise its powers of review.

We are constrained to observe that review of the order dated

18.08.2022 passed by this Court in D.B. S.A.W. 100/2022: Rahul

(8 of 8) [WRW-170/2022]

Jain & Ors. vs. Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank & Ors.

has been sought by IBPS which is simply the recruiting agency to

whom, the process of selection was outsourced on grounds which

were never argued/agitated before us during the course of final

hearing of the special appeal. The attempt to find out error in the

order by agitating new arguments or repeating old and overruled

arguments cannot be permitted to be raised for review of the

judgment which does not suffer from any error apparent on the

face of record.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the

petitioner/respondent No.3 has miserably failed to bring any

ground before this Court that could entitle them to invoke review

jurisdiction of this Court.

In the result, the review petition is dismissed being devoid of

merit.

No order as to costs.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J 58-skm/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)