Hon'ble Rakesh Srivastava,J.
Heard Shri V.K. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the review applicant as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for opposite party.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this review petition has been filed mainly on two grounds. Firstly, that the Court while allowing the special appeal has directed the State of U.P. and other authorities to pass appropriate orders in the matter of reinstatement of medically unfit candidates expeditiously within three month from the date of the order. However, till date they have not considered the reinstatement of the review-applicant/respondent. Secondly, in view of the judgment passed by this Court in Special Appeal No. 59/2015, Pramod Prasad and another Vs. State of U.P. and others (judgment dated 15.05.2019), Special Appeal Defective No.507 of 2013, State of U.P. and others Vs. Ali Mohammad (judgment dated 12.09.2013), the termination of service of the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law, and as such, the order dated 26.03.2015 passed in Special Appeal Defective no. 782 of 2014 is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that there is no error apparent on the face of record. No interference is required by this Court in the review jurisdiction. In case any direction issued to the state authorities has not been complied with then for that purpose the review petition would not be maintainable. It is also submitted that in case certain judgments, reliance on which has been placed by the petitioner, have not been considered or they lay down certain laws, which is not in consonance with the judgment under review then for that purpose also the review petition would not be maintainable.
We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
The special appeal has been allowed vide order dated 26.03.2015 and the judgment and order dated 11.08.2014 passed in writ petition no. 5967 (SS) of 2013 by the learned Single Judge has been set aside. The Division Bench while deciding the special appeal has considered in detail the submissions made by the parties counsel and has decided the special appeal on merit. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by any conclusion drawn by the Court or the findings recorded in this regard then we in the review jurisdiction cannot test the merit of the said conclusions or findings. The review jurisdiction has very limited scope.
In Meera Bhanja (Smt) vs. Nirmala Kumri Choudhury (Smt) [(1995) 1 SCC 170] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the review petition has to be entertained only on the ground of error apparent on the fact of record and not on any other ground.
The Hon'be Supreme Court while reiterating the above view in Parsion Devi vs. Sumitra Devi 1997 (8) SCC 715 observed that under order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. a judgment may be open to review if there is a mistake or error apparent on record. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on fact of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is a rider on the power of the Court, which passed the order. In exercise of jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be re-heard and corrected. On the aforesaid acid test it is settled position that a review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise".
Counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any error apparent on the fact of record and it appears that he wants re-hearing of the case under the garb of the application, which is not permissible.
We are also of the considered view that in case any direction has been issued by the Court while deciding the special appeal and that has not been complied with then for that purpose review petition would not be maintainable.
Considering the entire aspect of the matter, we do not find any error apparent on the face of record. The review petition as such is dismissed at the admission stage.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 Anurag