Case Note & Summary
The original petitioner, Tikeshkumar s/o Udelal Bopche, filed a review petition before the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) seeking review of an order dated 30th April 2012 in Writ Petition No. 5897 of 2011. In the writ petition, he had challenged the selection and appointment of Respondent No. 5, Pratima Dhanraj Shivankar, to the post of Shikshan Sevak, alleging that she had secured lower marks in B.Ed. Examination. He sought an appointment order in his favour pursuant to an advertisement dated 30th July 2010. The respondents included the District Selection Committee, Municipal Council, and the selected candidate. The review was sought on three grounds: first, that the petitioner had obtained 61.67% marks in B.Ed. while Respondent No. 5 secured only 61.17%; second, that the statement in the original judgment that the petitioner had not studied Social Sciences at B.A. level was incorrect because his mark sheet showed he studied History and Political Science; and third, that the fact that Respondent No. 5 studied Sociology at graduation was irrelevant because the District Selection Committee had not given that as a reason for not selecting the petitioner. The court, after hearing all parties, found that the review grounds did not disclose any error apparent on the face of the record. The court noted that the review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used as an appeal. The court observed that the grounds raised were already considered and rejected in the original judgment. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review - Error Apparent on Record - Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Review petition dismissed as no error apparent on record was found; the grounds raised were already considered and rejected in the original judgment, and review cannot be used as an appeal (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the review petitioner has made out a case for review of the order dated 30th April 2012 in Writ Petition No. 5897 of 2011 on the grounds of alleged errors in marks comparison and subject eligibility.
Final Decision
The review petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction limited to error apparent on record
- not re-appreciation of evidence
- Review not an appeal in disguise
- Order 47 Rule 1 CPC
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (01) 148
Misc. Civil Application No. 645 of 2012 in Writ Petition No. 5897 of 2011
B.P. Dharmadhikari, A.P. Bhangale
Shri A.Y. Kapgate for applicant/petitioner, Mrs. M.N. Hiwase, AGP for respondents No. 1 & 6, Shri Anoop Parihar for respondents No. 3 & 4, Shri S.K. Pardhy for respondent No. 5
Tikeshkumar s/o Udelal Bopche
District Selection Committee through its Chairman/Collector, Gondia & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Review petition against order in writ petition challenging selection and appointment of a teacher.
Remedy Sought
Review of order dated 30th April 2012 in Writ Petition No. 5897 of 2011 and setting aside of the selection of Respondent No. 5.
Filing Reason
Alleged errors in the original judgment regarding marks comparison and subject eligibility.
Previous Decisions
Writ Petition No. 5897 of 2011 was disposed of on 30th April 2012, upholding the selection of Respondent No. 5.
Issues
Whether the review petitioner has made out a case for review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
Whether the grounds raised disclose an error apparent on the face of the record.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he secured 61.67% marks in B.Ed. while Respondent No. 5 secured only 61.17%, and that the statement in the original judgment that he had not studied Social Sciences at B.A. level was incorrect.
Respondents argued that the review grounds do not disclose any error apparent on record and that the review petition is an attempt to re-agitate the same issues.
Ratio Decidendi
Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used as an appeal. The grounds raised were already considered and rejected in the original judgment, and no mistake was shown.
Judgment Excerpts
The review is sought on the ground that the review petitioner has obtained 61.67% marks in B.Ed. Examination while Respondent No. 5 secure only 61.17% marks.
The other ground for review is, the statement that the petitioner has not studied Social Sciences at B.A. level is incorrect inasmuch as his mark sheet shows that he has studied History and Political Science at Graduation level.
The third ground is the reason that Respondent No. 5 has studied Sociology for graduation is not relevant because not passing B.A. with Social Science as one of the subjects is not the reason given by the District Selection Committee for not selecting the petitioner and its affidavit in Writ Petition.
Procedural History
The original petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 5897 of 2011 challenging the selection and appointment of Respondent No. 5. The writ petition was disposed of on 30th April 2012. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Misc. Civil Application No. 645 of 2012 seeking review of that order. The review petition was heard and dismissed on 10th January 2014.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 47 Rule 1
