Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed two review applications (Review Application (Civil) No.170 of 2022 and No.171 of 2022) before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, seeking review of judgments passed in Writ Petition No.13760 of 2019 and Writ Petition No.11004 of 2019 respectively. In the original writ petitions, the High Court had quashed transfer orders issued by the State against the respondents (employees of the Public Works Department) on the ground that the transfers were arbitrary and passed without considering the representations of the employees and without following the policy of minimum tenure. The State, through its Secretary of the General Administration Department and Public Works Department, contended that the original judgments suffered from errors apparent on the face of the record, as the court had failed to appreciate that the transfers were made in public interest and that the employees had no right to a particular posting. The respondents opposed the review applications, arguing that the State was merely seeking a rehearing of the matter, which is not permissible in review jurisdiction. The court, after hearing the arguments, examined the scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It held that review is not an appeal in disguise and that a review can only be granted if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, which must be patent and not a mere possibility of a different view. The court found that the original judgments had correctly applied the principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution, and that the State had not pointed out any patent error. Consequently, both review applications were dismissed, upholding the quashing of the transfer orders.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Transfer - Arbitrary Transfer - Violation of Natural Justice - Transfer orders passed without considering representations and without adhering to the policy of minimum tenure are arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution - The High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can quash such transfer orders - Held that the original judgment did not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record (Paras 1-10). B) Civil Procedure - Review - Error Apparent on Face of Record - Order 47 Rule 1 CPC - Review is not an appeal in disguise; mere possibility of a different view is not a ground for review - The court must find a patent error on the face of the record - Held that the review applications did not disclose any such error and were dismissed (Paras 8-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the review applications filed by the State of Maharashtra against the quashing of transfer orders disclose any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
Both review applications are dismissed. The original judgments quashing the transfer orders are upheld.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Right of representation
- Arbitrary transfer
- Minimum tenure policy
- Article 14
- Article 226
- Review jurisdiction
- Error apparent on face of record
