Allahabad High Court
Dinesh Kumar Gupta vs State Of U.P. And Others on 11 November, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999(1)AWC671, (1999)1UPLBEC396
Author: S.K. Phaujdar
Bench: S.K. Phaujdar
JUDGMENT
B.K. Roy, A Chakrabarti and S.K. Phaujdar, JJ.
1. Through this Civil Misc. Review Petition No. 54512 of 1998, filed on 1st September. 1998, review Js sought for of the judgment and order dated 30.6.1998 passed by a Full Bench of this Court comprising two of us (Binod Kumar Roy and S. K. Phaujdar, JJ.) and Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. S. N. Tripathi, since retired, in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1265 of 1996 (reported in 1998 (3) UPLBEC 1805), the operative part of which reads thus :
"(i) The conversion of 13 posts of direct recruits, as available for promotion from Nyayik Sewa, is declared illegal and the recommendation of the Selection Committee dated 2.11.1995 and the resolution of the Full Court dated 18.11.1995 in question in this regard are quashed.
(ii) The appointees (respondent Nos. 3 to 15) will be deemed to be appointed on ad hoc basis only and not on substantive basis and that too till the final decision on this point to be taken by the Full Court.
(iii) The Full Court is requested to consider the question of increase in the number of vacancies from '6' to '19', which was admittedly available as per report of the Selection Committee itself.
(iv) Hon'ble the Chief Justice is requested to take necessary steps expeditiously for formation of a Selection Committee, so that appropriate number of candidates be interviewed for the 13 remaining posts for direct recruitment of H.J.S.
(v) The petition for intervention of Vinod Kumar Verma [filed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35384 of 1995) is rejected."
2. Since Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. S. N. Tripathi, retired, in his place Hon'ble the Chief Justice has nominated one of us (Aloke Chakrabarti, J.). That is how the matter has been listed before us.
3. Review is sought for as proposed in paragraph II of the accompanying affidavit which reads thus :
"That, it is submitted that the aforesaid view taken by the Full Court constitutes serious affront of the aforesaid judgment of this Hon'ble Court. Hon'ble High Court, on the administrative side. is bound to comply with any judicial pronouncement made by this Hon'ble Court. This Hon'ble Court has clearly and conclusively determined the number of vacancies to be 19. The 'request' issued by this Hon'ble Court to the Full Court, nevertheless, amounted to mandamus. This Hon'ble Court was enjoined to act in accordance with the observations made in the judgment of the Full Bench."
4. Before we proceed to consider the submissions of Mr. Ravi Kant, learned counsel appearing in support of this petition, we consider appropriate to remind ourselves as to what is the scope of review jurisdiction of this Court arising out of a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This has already been answered by the Supreme Court through its two 5 Judges decisions and accordingly no longer res integra. In Shivdeo Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1963 SC 1909, it was held that there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in very Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. In State of Gujarat v. Sardar Begum and others, AIR 1976 SC 1695. it was held that if a patent error has crept in due to inadvertence, the same "could and should have been suo motu corrected by the High Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction even after the expiry of the ordinary period of limitation. If any prescribed for a review application".
5. The solitary submissions made by Sri Ravi Kant, learned counsel for the review-petitioner. before us is that since in the judgment of this Court, rendered through majority, the word 'request' has been used the said request has been not well appreciated by the Full Court and it has incorrectly proceeded to resolve contrary to the find and mandamus issued by the Full Bench.
6. The question as to whether the Full Court has not followed the findings and/or not acted in terms of the mandamus issued by the Full Bench is not within the purview of examination of this Full Bench while exercising review jurisdiction. All what we say for the present is that in terms of the request made by the Full Bench. Hon'ble the Chief Justice convened a Full Court expeditiously though two of us (Binod Kumar Roy and S. K. Phaujdar, JJ.) took no part in its meeting. In Spender and Company Ltd. and another v. Vishwadarshan Distributors Pvt. Ltd. and others, (1995) 1 SCC 259, it was laid down to the effect that the use of the expression 'request' is sweet, soft and melodious and a chaste language.
7. We, for the aforementioned reasons, do not find anything to review the judgment rendered by the Full Bench earlier.
8. In the result this review application is dismissed.