Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ku. A. Prabhavathi, W.G. District. vs The State Of A.P., Revenue Dept., And 2 ... on 8 November, 2019
Author: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar, Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
+ I.A.No.6 of 2018 in W.P.No.16450 of 2004
% Dated 08-11-2019.
# A. Prabhavathi
..... Review Petitioner
Vs.
$ The State of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue
Department, Secretariat, Amaravati & Ors.
..Respondents
! Counsel for the review petitioner : Sri K.B. Ramanna Dora
^ Counsel for the respondents : Government Pleader for Services-I
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1 2013 (6) ALD 734 = 2013 (6) ALT 681
2 Common order of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad,
dated 01.09.2016, passed in WPMP (SR) No.125389 of 2016
in WP No.31371 of 2015 and WAMP (SR) No.126570 of 2016
in W.A.No.1101 of 2015.
2
CPK, J. & CMR,J.
Review Petition in I.A.No.6 of 2018
in W.P.No.16450 of 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
I.A.No.6 of 2018 in W.P.No.16450 of 2004
A. Prabhavathi
..... Review Petitioner
Vs.
The State of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue
Department, Secretariat, Amaravati & Ors.
..Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 08-11-2019
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers -No-
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be -Yes-
marked to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see -Yes-
the fair copy of the Judgment?
JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
3
CPK, J. & CMR,J.
Review Petition in I.A.No.6 of 2018
in W.P.No.16450 of 2004
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
I.A.No.6 of 2018 in W.P.No.16450 of 2004
ORDER:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) This review is preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 20.07.2018 passed by a Division Bench of the common High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.16450 of 2004 whereby the Writ Petition filed by the unsuccessful petitioner in O.A.No.4721 of 1999 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, was dismissed.
Facts germane to dispose of this review petition may briefly be stated as follows:
The petitioner is an employee joined service on 29.01.1990 as Probationary Deputy Tahsildar in Guntur District. As per school records, her date of birth is 15.06.1958.
The said date of birth is also entered in her Service Register. However, it is the case of the petitioner that the marriage of her parents took place on 11.05.1958 and as such she was born on 18.10.1959 and not on 15.06.1958. So, her correct date of birth is 18.10.1959. Therefore, after joining service, she has made representations on 22.02.1990 and 23.04.1990 to the concerned authority to record her date of birth as 18.10.1959 instead of 15.06.1958. The matter was referred to the Commissioner of Land Revenue, who in turn directed the District Collector on 21.01.1991 to consider the said 4 CPK, J. & CMR,J.
Review Petition in I.A.No.6 of 2018 in W.P.No.16450 of 2004 representations of the petitioner as per Rules as the District Collector is the competent authority in this regard. The District Collector issued proceedings dated 14.09.1992 to record the date of birth of the petitioner as 18.10.1959 and directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenali to alter the date of birth of the petitioner from 15.06.1958 to 18.10.1959 as he is the custodian of the Service Register of the petitioner. Pursuant to the same, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenali, issued proceedings dated 31.10.1992 altering the date of birth from 15.06.1958 to 18.10.1959.
Subsequently, the petitioner approached the Commissioner of Land Revenue to make necessary corrections as per the proceedings of the District Collector dated 14.09.1992 regarding her date of birth. The Commissioner of Land Revenue referred the matter to the Government as per his letter dated 20.10.1997. The Government issued orders on 14.07.1998 stating that the date of birth of the petitioner as determined on the basis of the school records and entered in the service records shall not be altered except in the case of bona fide clerical error and thereby directed the Commissioner of Land Revenue to take necessary action. Pursuant to the same, the Commissioner of Land Revenue issued proceedings dated 21.07.1998 rejecting the request of the petitioner. Consequently, the District Collector issued proceedings dated 30.01.1999 informing the petitioner about the proceedings issued by the Commissioner of Land Revenue. The petitioner 5 CPK, J. & CMR,J.
Review Petition in I.A.No.6 of 2018 in W.P.No.16450 of 2004 submitted a representation to the Government stating that her date of birth was already recorded in the year 1992 as 18.10.1959 and requested to issue suitable orders. But, the Government issued memo dated 04.06.1999 rejecting her representation.
Aggrieved by the said proceedings dated 21.07.1998 of the Commissioner of Land Revenue and the consequential order of the District Collector dated 30.01.1999, and the Government Memo dated 04.06.1999, the petitioner filed O.A.No.4721 of 1999 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its order dated 05.05.2004, dismissed the O.A. Challenging the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioner filed W.P.No.16450 of 2004 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. The said Writ Petition came to be dismissed by a Division Bench of the common High Court by its order dated 20.07.2018.
The record reveals that the petitioner preferred SLP (C) No.26381 of 2018 to the Supreme Court against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 20.07.2018 passed in W.P.No.16450 of 2004. Thereafter, she has withdrawn the said SLP on the ground that she has to file review application before the High Court. Accordingly, permission is accorded to the petitioner to withdraw the same. SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court as withdrawn with liberty to file review petition before the High Court by an order dated 08.10.2018. 6
CPK, J. & CMR,J.
Review Petition in I.A.No.6 of 2018 in W.P.No.16450 of 2004 Therefore, the petitioner has filed this review petition with a request to this Court to have a relook into its order dated 20.07.2018 passed in W.P.No.16450 of 2004 and revise the same.
As can be seen from the review petition, the same was filed primarily on two grounds i.e., (i) the date of birth of the petitioner was already altered as 18.10.1959 as per the orders of the District Collector, dated 14.09.1992 and (ii) in the allocation of employees between the two States, while furnishing list of employees allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh, in Annexure-I in A.P. Gazette, the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 18.10.1959 by the Government and as such the date of birth of the petitioner is to be considered as 18.10.1959 and as this gazette notification was subsequently issued on 01.01.2018 after filing the Writ Petition, the same could not be filed in the Writ Petition. Therefore, the petitioner requested to consider the said gazette notification wherein her date of birth was mentioned as 18.10.1959 and revise the order dated 20.07.2018 passed in W.P.No.16450 of 2004 and set aside the order of the Tribunal.
We have heard Sri K.B. Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the marriage of the parents of the petitioner as per the wedding invitation took place on 11.05.1958 and as such there 7 CPK, J. & CMR,J.
Review Petition in I.A.No.6 of 2018 in W.P.No.16450 of 2004 is absolutely no possibility for the petitioner to be born on 15.06.1958, within a month after the marriage of her parents. He submits that her correct date of birth is 18.10.1959. However, her date of birth was wrongly mentioned in the school records as 15.06.1958. After the petitioner submitted a representation immediately after joining service that her date of birth was initially altered as 18.10.1959. However, subsequently, it was again altered as 15.06.1958 on the ground that the date of birth once entered in the service records on the basis of the school records cannot be corrected or altered except to correct the bona fide clerical error. He would then contend that even in the gazette notification that was issued allocating the employees to the State of Andhra Pradesh, the date of birth of the petitioner was shown as 18.10.1959 and as such, it is evident that the Government is considering the date of birth of the petitioner as 18.10.1959. Therefore, on the basis of the said entry made in the gazette notification showing her date of birth as 18.10.1959, learned counsel would submit that the present order dated 20.07.2018 passed in W.P.No.16450 of 2004 is to be revised and it is to be held that the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 18.10.1959.
In oppugnation, the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents vehemently contended that the petitioner herself declared her date of birth immediately after entering into service in the Service Register as 15.10.1958 at the time of opening the Service Register. She 8 CPK, J. & CMR,J.
Review Petition in I.A.No.6 of 2018 in W.P.No.16450 of 2004 has also counter-signed the said entry in the Service Register. Therefore, as the said entry of her date of birth as 15.06.1958 in the Service Register is made on her own declaration and she has counter-signed the same and as the said date of birth is entered on the basis of her school record, she cannot contend contrary to the said entry made on her own declaration and claim that her correct date of birth is 18.10.1959. He would also contend that it is not in dispute that in her school records, her date of birth is shown as 15.06.1958. Therefore, the date of birth as entered in the Service Register immediately after joining service on the basis of the school records cannot subsequently be altered except to correct the clerical error.
The learned Government Pleader for Services-I would further contend that except the alleged wedding invitation of the parents of the petitioner, there is absolutely no other evidence worth the name to prove that the marriage of her parents took place on 11.05.1958. He also contends that there is absolutely no legal evidence adduced by her to prove that she was actually born on 18.10.1959 and not on 15.06.1958 as entered in the school records. He finally contends that both the Tribunal and the Division Bench of the common High Court after considering these facts and probabilities and the law on the subject held against the petitioner and rejected her claim. In the end, he contends that a mere wrong entry made inadvertently in the gazette notification that her date of birth is 18.10.1959 will not confer any right on the petitioner to claim 9 CPK, J. & CMR,J.
Review Petition in I.A.No.6 of 2018 in W.P.No.16450 of 2004 that her date of birth is 18.10.1959. He contends that probably earlier there was a wrong entry made in the Service Register by the order of the District Collector without considering the legal position, the same was subsequently carried in the gazette notification by mistake. He contends that the said order of the District Collector was subsequently set aside and the date of birth of the petitioner was shown in the Service Register as 15.06.1958 and it is to be considered and not the wrong entry made in the gazette notification. So, he submits that the said gazette notification cannot be the basis to seek review of the order of this Court. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the review petition.
We have given our earnest consideration to the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I for the respondents.
Since this is a review preferred by the petitioner to re-examine the order of this Court, it is expedient to first consider the cardinal principles relating to review of an order passed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and to examine the scope of power of review of this Court to re- examine an order passed in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Legal position in this regard is not res nova and it has been well-settled. Considering all the earlier precedents rendered on the scope of review of an order that was earlier 10 CPK, J. & CMR,J.
Review Petition in I.A.No.6 of 2018 in W.P.No.16450 of 2004 passed in a Writ Petition, the Division Bench of this Court has elaborately discussed the principles relating to review of a case in a Writ Petition in T.D. Dayal v. Madupu Harinarayana1 and Mohammadiya Educational Society v. Union of India2.
Summing up the principles, as discussed in the above two cases of the Division Bench, after undertaking the exercise of detailed survey of law on the scope of review, the essence of the observations made in the above two cases may be stated in a condensed version as follows:
"Review, literally and judicially, means re-examination or reconsideration. The basic philosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance of human fallibility. Yet, in the realm of law, Courts lean strongly in favour of the finality of a decision legally and properly made. Exceptions have been carved out to correct accidental mistakes or to prevent miscarriage of justice or to avoid abuse of process. So, the power of review would be exercised only to remove the error and not to disturb the finality. There are definitive limits to exercise the power of review. The same can be exercised on the discovery of a new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. It can also be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that a decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a Court of Appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with the appellate power which may enable an Appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the Subordinate Court. The review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except "where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility".
Thus, as per the law enunciated in the aforesaid judgments, and as per the principles culled out from the above 12013 (6) ALD 734 = 2013 (6) ALT 681 2Common order of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, dated 01.09.2016, passed in WPMP (SR) No.125389 of 2016 in WP No.31371 of 2015 and WAMP (SR) No.126570 of 2016 in W.A.No.1101 of 2015.
11
CPK, J. & CMR,J.
Review Petition in I.A.No.6 of 2018 in W.P.No.16450 of 2004 observations made by the Division Bench after considering all the earlier precedents on the subject, the legal position relating to the scope of interference in review proceedings which are extremely limited can be summarised as follows:
(1) A review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except "where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility".
(2) When a new or important matter or evidence is discovered which was not within the knowledge of the person seeking review at the time of hearing the case earlier or which could not be produced by him when the order was made.
(3) The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from the principle is justified only when circumstances, of a substantial and compelling character, make it necessary to do so. (4) Review is not a rehearing of an original matter. The power of review cannot be confused with the appellate power which enables the appellate Court to correct all errors committed by a subordinate Court.
(5) A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise".
(6) An error which is not self-evident, and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying exercise of the power of review. (7) There is a clear distinction between an "erroneous decision" and "an error apparent on the face of the record". While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of 12 CPK, J. & CMR,J.
Review Petition in I.A.No.6 of 2018 in W.P.No.16450 of 2004 the review jurisdiction. So, the earlier order cannot be reviewed unless the Court is satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (8) If the judgment is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record, in the sense that it is evident on a mere look at the record without a long-drawn process of reasoning, a review application is maintainable. If there is a serious irregularity in the proceeding, such as violation of the principles of natural justice, a review application can be entertained.
Thus, the legal position is luculent that the scope of review is very limited and it cannot be equated with the appellate power to go into the findings of fact and the power of review must be exercised with extreme care, caution and circumspection and only in exceptional cases.
Keeping in mind the above settled principles of law relating to exercise of power of review of an order passed in a Writ Petition in exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the present review preferred by the petitioner is to be considered.
In the instant case, admittedly, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 15.06.1958 in her school records. Even when the petitioner entered service, her date of birth was initially recorded in the Service Register as 15.06.1958 and she has also attested the same. Now contrary to it, she contends that the said date of birth entered in the school records as 15.06.1958 and in her Service Register is not correct and her 13 CPK, J. & CMR,J.
Review Petition in I.A.No.6 of 2018 in W.P.No.16450 of 2004 actual date of birth is 18.10.1959. However, it is significant to note that the petitioner did not adduce any legal evidence to prove that she was actually born on 18.10.1959. Simply relying on an alleged wedding invitation of her parents, containing the date of their marriage as 11.05.1958, she contends that her date of birth could not be 15.06.1958 and it is false. The said circumstance alone is not sufficient to hold that she was not born on 15.06.1958 and that she was born on 18.10.1959 sans the legal evidence to establish that she was actually born on 18.10.1959. Any number of wedding invitations can be produced subsequently to bolster the version of the petitioner. So, the authenticity of the wedding invitation is also in question. So, the said wedding invitation, even if any, cannot be the sole basis to hold that she was not born on 15.06.1958 and to hold that she was born on 18.10.1959. In fact, this Court in the order under review clearly held that except relying on the said invitation, nothing was placed by the petitioner to show on what basis she claimed her date of birth as 18.10.1959 and no material was placed to show on what basis the Revenue Divisional Officer conducted enquiry and came to the conclusion that the date of birth of the petitioner was 18.10.1959. We do not find any legal flaw in recording the said finding by the Court.
The petitioner now relied on the gazette notification dated 01.01.2018 issued by the Government allocating the employees to the State of Andhra Pradesh wherein her name is shown at 14 CPK, J. & CMR,J.
Review Petition in I.A.No.6 of 2018 in W.P.No.16450 of 2004 Sl.No.113 in the said gazette notification and her date of birth is shown as 18.10.1959. The sole basis for filing this review petition is this gazette notification. It is sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the date of birth of the petitioner is now mentioned as 18.10.1959 in this gazette notification by the Government itself that it is to be held that her date of birth is 18.10.1959.
Repelling the said contention, the learned Government Pleader for Services-I for the respondents submits that the said date of birth was wrongly mentioned in the gazette notification by inadvertent mistake and probably as earlier as per the proceedings of the District Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer that her date of birth was wrongly shown as 18.10.1959 which was subsequently again corrected as 15.06.1958 that the said wrong date of birth must have been mentioned in the gazette notification on the basis of the earlier entry. He contends that the petitioner cannot take advantage of the same and seek review of the order of this Court. We find merit in the said submission of the learned Government Pleader for Services-I. A mere inadvertent wrong mention of date of birth in the gazette notification subsequently will not confer any legal right on the petitioner to claim that her date of birth is 18.10.1959. She cannot take undue advantage of the said inadvertent mistake crept in the gazette notification and seek review of the order. As rightly contended by the learned Government Pleader for Services-I probably as earlier the date 15 CPK, J. & CMR,J.
Review Petition in I.A.No.6 of 2018 in W.P.No.16450 of 2004 of birth was corrected as 18.10.1959 as per the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer that the same was carried into the gazette notification, ignoring the correct date of birth as 15.06.1958. The petitioner has to independently prove with authenticated legal evidence that she was actually born on 18.10.1959. As she has miserably failed to substantiate the said material fact, she cannot seek the relief of correction of date of birth on surmises and hypothetical views.
Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents, this Court clearly held, at para.8 of the order dated 20.07.2018 passed in W.P.No.16450 of 2004, that at the time of opening the Service Register, the date of birth of the petitioner was entered as 15.06.1958 and the petitioner also counter-signed the said entry in the Service Register and the said entry in the Service Register made on the basis of the consent of the petitioner cannot be changed without there being any basis at the will of the petitioner. It is also further held that the date of birth entered in the Service Register cannot be altered based upon the so called enquiry conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer as there is no basis for the petitioner to claim her date of birth as 18.10.1959.
Therefore, we absolutely do not find any manifest error of law apparent on the face of the order under review. The order was also not passed ignoring the evidence on record or on 16 CPK, J. & CMR,J.
Review Petition in I.A.No.6 of 2018 in W.P.No.16450 of 2004 perverse appreciation of evidence. The order also did not suffer from inherent lack of jurisdiction of the Court. So, none of the grounds essential to review the order are existing to entertain this review.
Therefore, in the light of the above discussion, we absolutely see no valid ground to review the order dated 20.07.2018 passed in W.P.No.16450 of 2004, which is perfectly valid under law and it calls for no interference in this review.
Resultantly, the review petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall also stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date:08-11-2019.
Note:
L.R. copy to be marked.
B/O cs