Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr vs Manmohan Mathur on 19 April, 2017
1
R.P. No.99/2017
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
DB: SHEEL NAGU & S.A. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ
R.P. No. 99/2017
State of M.P. & Ors.
Vs.
Man Mohan Mathur & Ors.
Whether reportable :- Yes /No
____________________________________________________________
For Petitioners/State : Shri Praveen Newaskar,
Government Advocate.
For Respondents : Shri S.S. Raghuvanshi, Advocate.
ORDER
(Delivered on this Day of _____April, 2017) Per Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari
1) This review petition seeks review/recall of the order dated 03/05/2015 passed in W.A. No. 185/2013 as well as the order dated 19.9.2014 passed in R.P. No. 375/2013.
2) Brief facts necessary to decide the real controversy in question are that the respondents Manmohan Mathur & ors. filed WP No. 1102/2010(s) aggrieved by the arbitrary action of the petitioners(herein) of not granting them appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak even after attaining the qualification of eligibility examination, 2 R.P. No.99/2017 2008 conducted by the M.P. Professional Examination Board, Bhopal. The said writ petition was finally decided on 30.07.2012 wherein the learned single Judge allowed the petition by applying the ratio of judgment of Principal Seat in the case reported in 2012(2) MPLJ 82 (Anil Bhatt & Ors. v. State of MP & Ors.). In other words, the ultimate direction given by the Principal Seat will govern the present matter.
3) Thereafter against the order dated 30.07.2012 the appellants herein filed W.A. No. 185/2013 which was also dismissed on 03.05.2013. It is further submitted that in the meanwhile in the identical case, contempt petitions were filed before the Principal Seat at Jabalpur bearing C.P. No. 1696/2010 & C.P. 186/2011, which came up for hearing before the Division Bench on 24.04.2011. This court held that once rule has been amended by the State government, contempt proceedings cannot be initiated against the authorities of the State government and accordingly the proceedings were dropped.
4) It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the aforesaid orders could not be brought to the 3 R.P. No.99/2017 notice of this Court therefore while deciding the Writ Appeal, the same was not taken into consideration. Once rules were amended by the Government vide notification dated 04.01.2010, the respondents were not entitled for the appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak. The respondents did not possess the eligibility criteria on the date of their selection, therefore, the order deserves to be reviewed. Against the order passed in W.A. No. 185/2013 and in review petition no. 375/2013, SLP was filed and the same was dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 07.09.2015 on the ground of delay. Since, the Apex Court did not consider the matter on merits and dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay, therefore, present review petition has been filed.
5) On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the review petition and has submitted that the matter is already settled by the Supreme Court and as such no apparent error could be pointed out, therefore, the review petition deserves to be dismissed. It is further contended that every amendment is prospective unless it has been specifically 4 R.P. No.99/2017 mentioned that it would apply with retrospective effect. In the instant case, the advertisement was issued in the month of August, 2008, and the amendment was brought into effect from 04.01.2010, therefore, it would not be applicable retrospectively. The Apex Court in the case of Parmendar Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (2012) 1 SCC 177 has held that once the recruitment process has begun, subsequent change or any amendment in the recruitment rule position shall not apply. Moreover, the order having attained finality till the Apex Court, the instant second review is not maintainable.
6) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7) It is not in dispute that the Writ Appeal was dismissed on 03.05.2013. Thereafter, review petition was also dismissed by this Court on 19.09.2014. SLP was also dismissed on 07.09.2015. The grounds raised in this review petition are of no avail to the petitioner. Moreso, none of the grounds available for successfully seeking review as recognized by order 47 rule 1 CPC are made out in the present case. The counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any apparent error on the face of 5 R.P. No.99/2017 record.
8) The Apex Court in the case of S. Bairathi Amaal v. Plni Roman (2009) 10 SCC 464 has held that in order to seek review, it has to be demonstrated that the order suffers from an error contemplated under order 47 rule 1 CPC which is apparent on the face of record and not an error which is to be fished out and searched. A decision or order cannot be reviewed merely because it is erroneous. In another case, the Apex Court in case of State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta (2008) 8 SCC 612 has held that, "a party cannot be permitted to argue de novo in the garb of review".
9) Accordingly, no case for interference is made out in the present review petition and therefore the same is dismissed.
(SHEEL NAGU) (S.A. DHARMADHIKARI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Durgekar*