IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ REVIEW PETITION NO.263 OF 2018 (S-CAT) BETWEEN:
M.G.SHIVALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RETIRED BCA SA, R/AT NO.307, OPP. SKN SCHOOL VINOBHANAGARA SHIVAMOGGA-577 204 … PETITIONER (BY SRI.RAGHAVENDRACHAR M., ADV.) AND:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF POSTS DAK BHAVAN NEW DELHI-110 001 2. CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL KARNATAKA CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 001 3. POST MASTER GENERAL S.K.REGION BANGALORE-560 001 4. SUPERINTENDENT RMS ‘Q’ DIVISION BENGALURU-560 001 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.PRAMOD, CGC) - - -
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 OF C.P.C. READ WITH ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF C.P.C., PRAYNG THIS HON’BLE COURT TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED:02.08.2018 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.57935/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J. MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.Raghavendrachar M, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B Pramod, Central Government Counsel for respondents 1 to 4.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing.
3. This petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 02.08.2018 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.57935/2017.
4. Facts giving rise to the filing of this review petition are that the petitioner was appointed as an orderly in Group-D on 28.11.1979 in the postal department. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter, he was appointed as Sorting Assistant by an order dated 24.05.1982. Petitioner, however was deprived of the benefit of Modified Assured carrier Progression Scheme (hereinafter referred to as “MACPS” for brevity). Petitioner therefore approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing an Original Application. The aforesaid Original Application was allowed by an order dated 21.08.2017. Being aggrieved, the respondents filed a Writ Petition viz., W.P.57935/2017 before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 02.08.2018 allowed the Writ Petition and it was interalia held that the order by which the petitioner was posted to the post of Sorting Assistant was in fact an order of promotion and therefore, petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of MACPS. In the aforesaid facts and background, the petitioner has filed this review petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 21.05.1982 by which the petitioner was posted as Sorting Assistant was not an order of promotion but it was an order of appointment. In support of aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to an order dated 03.06.1982 passed by the Superintendent of Posts and Telegraphs Department, Bengaluru. It is further submitted that since the petitioner was appointed to the post of Sorting Assistant by an order dated 03.06.1982, therefore, petitioner is entitled to the benefit of MACPS. On the other hand, Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order passed by this Court and has submitted that in fact the petitioner was promoted by an order dated 21.05.1982 to the post of Sorting Assistant and therefore, the Division Bench of this Court has rightly held that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of MACPS.
6. We have considered the submissions of both sides. It is trite law that in the provision of review, the parties cannot be permitted to argue the matter de novo. It is equally well settled legal proposition that the order in respect of which review is sought must suffer from an error apparent on the face of the record and that error has to be self-evident. That the scope of review is extremely limited and it is not an appeal against the decision in the garb of review. In the backdrop of aforesaid well settled legal proposition and in the facts of the case on hand, as could be seen on perusal of the order 21.05.1983 the relevant extract of which reads as under:
In continuation of this office memo of even no.29.04.1982 the following departmental Promotees are permitted to assume as sorting assistants after completion of their Practical Training. They are posted as follows:-
Sl.
No.
Names of the Departmental Promotees Unit in which Undergoing Practical Trg.
Place Posted 1 D.S.Dalappa Yeshwanthpur Stg SRO ‘Q’ Dn.
B’lore 2 Syed Ibrahim Bangarpet Sorting SRO ‘Q’ Dn.
B’Pet 3 S.Vasudeva Yeshwanthpur Stg SRO ‘Q’ Dn.
B’lore 4 H.Ragurama Ganiga SRO ‘Q’ Dn. Udupi SRO ‘Q’ Dn.
Udupi 5 K.Lakshminarayana SRO ‘Q’ Dn. Mysore SRO ‘Q’ Dn.
Mysore 6 H.G.Shivalingappa SRO ‘Q’ Dn.Shimoga SRO ‘Q’ Dn.
Shimoga Thus, from perusal of the order dated 21.05.1982, petitioner being a departmental promote has been permitted to assume the charge of the post of Sorting Assistant. In other words, petitioner has been promoted to the post of Sorting Assistant. From the order dated 03.06.1982 to which a reference has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is evident that by the aforesaid order, the departmental promotees who have been promoted to the post of Sorting Assistants have been posted in different places against the existing vacancies. The order dated 03.06.1982 by the Superintendent of Indian Posts and Telegraphs Department cannot be said to be an order of appointment of the petitioner to the post of Sorting Assistant.
7. It is also clear from a reading of the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in para.5 that petitioner was promoted to the post of Sorting Assistant by an order dated 21.05.1982. Thereafter in para.6, a finding has been recorded which reads as under:
“6. On these aspects when there is no serious dispute and the respondent has been granted one promotion and two financial up- gradations, the case of the respondent being considered once over again for grant of MACP in the manner as directed by the CAT would not arise in the instant case”.
8. In view of the preceding analysis, it is evident that the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court neither suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record nor any jurisdictional infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of the review jurisdiction.
9. In the result, we do not find any merit in the petition. The same fails and is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE brn