Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
.M.Balaraju, S/O.M.Vemaiah, vs The Vice Chairman Managing Director, on 16 August, 2022
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
Review I.A.Nos.1 OF 2022 inW.P.No.34182 of 2012, Review
I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.33850 of 2012 and Review
I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.36598 of 2012
COMMON ORDER :
Review I.A.No.1 of 2022 is filed to review the order dated 01.11.2019 passed in W P No.34182 of 2012; Review I.A.No.1 of 2021 is filed to review the order dated 22.10.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.33850 of 2012 and Review I.A.No.1 of 2021 is filed to review the order dated 22.10.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.36598 of 2012.
2. As the issue involved in these Review petitions is one and the same, these matters are being taken up together for disposal by way of this Common Order.
3. As the facts in these Review petitions are similar and identical, therefore Review I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.34182 of 2012 is taken up as a lead case, and the facts therein are referred to hereunder for convenience.
4. The grievance of the petitioners in all these writ petitions is that the action of the respondents in not considering their case for selection to the post of Shramik by adding 30 marks in the selection process made pursuant to the notification dated 01.1.2010 while awarding to the similarly situated persons is illegal and arbitrary.
5. Having heard the submissions of both the learned counsels, this Court, directed the petitioners to approach the 2 Regional Manager concerned of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and produce a photo copy of the Provisional National Trade Certificate possessed by them and upon such production, the Regional Manager concerned shall take the same into account for adding appropriate marks for selection purpose and pass appropriate orders about their selection or otherwise as Shramiks and communicate the same to the petitioners within two weeks from the date of production of Provisional National Trade Certificate.
6. In pursuance of the above order, the Regional Manager, APSRTC has filed the above Interlocutory Applications to review the orders of this Court. This Court vide order dated 31.03.2022 while granting interim stay, issued notice to the respondents by RPAD.
7. Heard Mr. Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader and Mr. N. Srihari, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC appearing for the petitioners/respondents and Mr. S.M. Subhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/petitioners.
8. Learned Standing Counsel argued that the orders may be reviewed as there are certain errors apparent on the face of the record. He argued that in similar matter in W.P.No.35237 of 2012 this Court granted interim order dated 28.11.2012 directed the APSRTC to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the Circular dated 21.10.2010. though a petition has been filed by the APSRTC to vacate the 3 above order, it is specifically stated in the counter filed in support thereof that the case of the petitioners was considered pursuant to the above interim order and proceedings dated 26.12.2012 were issued. As per the said proceedings issued by the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Anantapur, the case of the petitioners would be considered on par with other candidates who applied pursuant to the notification issued in the year 2011. The said writ petition was closed leaving it open to the petitioners to pursue alternative remedies, if warranted, as regards the subsequent proceedings in accordance with law. He further argued that this Court ought to have seen that in WPNo.39000 of 2012 in WP No.9186 of 2011, it is categorically stated that this clarification shall not result in reopening the selections which were already made in 2010, and for 2011 vacancies. He further argued that the Court ought to have seen that the orders of this Court in WPMP No.46461 of 2012 in the matter, the case of the petitioners were considered as per the guidelines vide relevant Circular PD-55/2010 dated 21.10.2010 and the petitioners herein were informed vide Regional Manager, Ananatapur proceedings dated 26.12.2012, therefore ought not to have disposed of directing the Regional Manger concerned shall take "Provisional National Trade Certificate" into account for adding appropriate marks for selection purpose, and pass appropriate orders about their selections or otherwise as Shramiks and communicate the same to the petitioners within two weeks from the date of 4 production of Provisional National Trade Certificates. Hence, he requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.
9. Learned Standing counsel relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in U.P State Road Transport Corporation vs U.P Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgarsangh1, wherein it was held that "it is well settled that other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits and for that a trainee would not be required to get his name sponsored by any Employment Exchange. If age bar would come in the way of the trainee the same would be relaxed according to circumstances. The circular dated 21st December 1977 stating that full efforts should be made to provide trainees with employment, falls short of any promite, therefore the subsequent letter dated 12.11.1979 reserving 50 per cent vacancies for apprentice trainees were not bad. Indeed the Government in its letter dated 23.3.1983 even desired reservation of 50 per cent vacancies for apprentice trainees.
The facts of the above case are not covered to the present set of facts of the cases.
10. In a case of Ram Sahu (Dead) Through LRs and others Versus Vinod Kumar Rawat and others2 , wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that :
1
1995(1)SCR 204 2 2020 SCC Online SC 896 5 "An application for review would lie inter alia when the order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record and permitting the same to continue would lead to failure of justice. In Rajendra Kumar v. Rambai this Court held: (SCC p. 514, para 6) "6. The limitations on exercise of the power of review are well settled. The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed."
The power of review can also be exercised by the court in the event discovery of new and important matter or evidence takes place which despite exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. An application for review would also lie if the order has been passed on account of some mistake.Furthermore, an application for review shall also lie for any other sufficient reason.
It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order.
Review is not appeal in disguise. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India this Court held: (SCC p. 251, para
56) "56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be 6 exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise."
The dictionary meaning of the word "review" is "the act of looking, offer something again with a view to correction or improvement". It cannot be denied that the review is the creation of a statute. In the case of Patel Narshi Thakershi vs. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, (1971) 3 SCC 844, this Court has held that the power of review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. The review is also not an appeal in disguise.
11. It is pertinent to mention here that the scope and ambit of the Court's power under Section 114 of CPC, which reads as under:
Section 114 CPC :
Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved-
(a) by a decree or Order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or Order from which no appeal is allowed by this Court, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the Order, and the Court may make such Order thereon as it thinks fit.
12. To appreciate the scope of review, it would be proper for this Court to discuss the object and ambit of Section 114 CPC as the same is a substantive provision for 7 review when a person considering himself aggrieved either by a decree or by an order of Court from which appeal is allowed but no appeal is preferred or where there is no provision for appeal against an order and decree, may apply for review of the decree or order as the case may be in the Court, which may order or pass the decree. From the bare reading of Section 114 CPC, it appears that the said substantive power of review under Section 114 CPC has not laid down any condition as the condition precedent in exercise of power of review nor the said Section imposed any prohibition on the Court for exercising its power to review its decision. The powers of review cannot be exercised as an inherent power nor can an appellate power can be exercised in the guise of power of review.
13. It is also pertinent to mention here that a review application or petition may be filed by the affected party within 30 days of the Order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court. The decisions of both Supreme Court and High Courts can be reviewed in Review Petition.
14. As seen from the above, in view of the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a review has to be filed within 30 days. Though the petitioners/respondents have failed to file review applications within 30 days, but they have filed the present review applications without filing the delay condonation petition.
8
15. In view of the above settled law and as per Section 114 of CPC, there is no apparent error on the orders passed by this Court dated 01.11.2019 in W P No.34182 of 2012; order dated 22.10.2019 in WP. No.33850 of 2012 and order dated 22.10.2019 in W.P.No.36598 of 2012. Moreover, as seen from the above orders, it is observed that the orders were passed in the presence of learned Standing Counsel by name Mr. K.Narsi Reddy and further the writ petitions were filed in the year 2012 and the same were disposed of in the year 2019 giving opportunity to the petitioners/respondents. Thereafter, on filing the contempt petitions, the respondents filed the present review applications after more than 2 ½ years. As such, in view of any angle, there are no merits in the present review applications and are liable to be dismissed.
16. Accordingly, the Review Applications vide Review I.A.Nos.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.34182 of 2012, Review I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.33850 of 2012 and Review I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.36598 of 2012 are dismissed.
______________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : 16 -08-2022 Gvl 9 HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO Review I.A.Nos.1 OF 2022 inW.P.No.34182 of 2012, Review I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.33850 of 2012 and Review I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.36598 of 2012 Date : 16 .08.2022 Gvl