Himachal Pradesh High Court
_______________________________________________________ vs Hitesh Chanana & Others on 5 June, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Review Petition No.33 of 2025
Date of Decision: 05.06.2025
_______________________________________________________
State of Himachal Pradesh & others .......Petitioners
Versus
Hitesh Chanana & others ... Respondent
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1Yes.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms.
Swati Daraik, Deputy Advocate General and
Mr. Shalabh Thakur, Assistant Advocate
General.
For the Respondents: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Manish Sharma, Advocate.
_______________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
By way of present Review Petition filed under Order 47
Rule 1 read with Sections 114 and 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, a prayer has been made on behalf of the review
petitioners to review and recall the judgment dated 28.05.2025
passed by this Court in CWP No.6521 of 2025, titled as Hitesh
Chanana and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others,
whereby this Court, while allowing the petition filed by the
respondents, quashed and set aside the action of the review
petitioners inasmuch as refusing to relieve the respondents from the
1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
condition of bond executed by them, being in violation of Policy and
terms and conditions of bond executed by the respondents and
directed the review petitioners to release the original MBBS Degrees
to the respondents alongwith undated cheques within a period of one
week.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the record of the case.
3. Before considering the correctness of the grounds raised
by the review petitioners for reviewing the judgment in question, this
Court finds it necessary to elaborate upon power of review.
4. Needless to say, by now it is well settled that power to
review cannot be exercised as an appellate power and has to be
strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. An
error on the face of the record must be such an error which, mere
looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long
drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may
conceivably be two opinions.
5. It is well settled that a review is by no means an appeal
in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected,
but lies only for patent error. Where without any elaborate argument
one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law
which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two
3
opinions, entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the
face of the record would be made out.(See: M/s.Thungabhadra
Industries Ltd. vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964
SC 1372).
6. Reliance is also placed upon recent judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court in case titled Arun Dev Upadhyaya versus Integrated
Sales Service Limited and another,(2023)8 Supreme Court Cases
11, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court elaborately discussed the scope of
the phrase "error apparent on the face of record". At this stage, it
would be profitable to reproduce para Nos. 29 to 35 of aforesaid
judgment herein below:-
29. A three-Judge Bench of this Court comprising of Hon'ble Shri S.R.
Das, C.J., M. Hidayatullah and Shri K.C. Das Gupta, JJ.
in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tiru- male [Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, 1959 SCC OnLine SC 10 : AIR 1960 SC 137] , discussed the scope of the phrase "error apparent on the face of record". The chal- lenge before this Court in the said case was the judgment [Mallikarjun Bhavani Tirumale v. Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde, 1952 SCC OnLine Bom 82] of the High Court on the ground whether it suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. The High Court had issued a writ of certiorari and had quashed order of the Tribunal and restored that of the Mamlatdar. In para 8 of the Report, the issue which was to be considered is reflected. The same is reproduced hereunder :
(Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde case [Satyanarayan Laxmina- rayan Hegde v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, 1959 SCC OnLine SC 10 : AIR 1960 SC 137] , AIR p. 139, para 8) "8. The main question that arises for our consideration in this appeal by special leave granted by this Court is whether there 4 is any error apparent on the face of the record so as to enable the superior court to call for the records and quash the order by a writ of certiorari or whether the error, if any, was 'a mere error not so apparent on the face of the record', which can only be corrected by an appeal if an appeal lies at all."
30. After discussing the relevant material on record, the conclusion is stated in para 17 of the report. The view was that where an error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. The view that long-drawn process of arguments to canvass a point attacking the order in a re-
view jurisdiction, cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of record. Relevant extract from para 17 of the Report is reproduced he- reunder : (Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde case [Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, 1959 SCC OnLine SC 10 : AIR 1960 SC 137] , AIR pp. 141-42) "17. ... Is the conclusion wrong and if so, is such error apparent on the face of the record? If it is clear that the error if any is not apparent on the face of the record, it is not necessary for us to decide whether the conclusion of the Bombay High Court on the question of notice is correct or not. An error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. As the above discussion of the rival contentions show the al- leged error in the present case is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated ar- guments. We do not think such an error can be cured by a writ of certi- orari according to the rule governing the powers of the superior court to issue such a writ. In our opinion the High Court was wrong in thinking that the alleged error in the judgment of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal viz. that an order for possession should not be made unless a previous notice had been given was an error apparent on the face of the record so as to be capable of being corrected by a writ of certiorari.
31. Another case which may be briefly dealt with is Parsion De- vi v. Sumitri Devi [Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715] , where, this Court ruled that under Order 47 Rule 1CPC, a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error appar- ent on the face of the record. 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 the court to exercise its power of review. It also observed that a review petition cannot be al- lowed to be treated as an appeal in disguise.
32. A series of decisions may also be referred to wherein, it has been held that power to review may not be exercised on the ground that decision was erroneous on merits as the same would be the do- main of the court of appeal. Power of review should not be confused with appellate powers as the appellate power can correct all manners of errors committed by the subordinate courts. The following judgments may be referred:
(1) Shivdev Singh v. State of Punjab [Shivdev Singh v. State of Punjab, 1961 SCC OnLine SC 29 : AIR 1963 SC 1909] 5 (2) Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma [Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389 :
AIR 1979 SC 1047] (3) Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury [Meera Bhan- ja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170] (4) Uma Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. [Uma Nath Pandey v. State of U.P., (2009) 12 SCC 40 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 501].
33. Recently, this Court in a judgment dated 24-2-2023 passed in S. Murali Sundaram v. Jothibai Kannan [S. Murali Sundaram v. Jothibai Kannan, (2023) 13 SCC 515 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 185] , observed that even though a judgment sought to be reviewed is erroneous, the same cannot be a ground to review in exercise of powers under Order 47 Rule 1CPC. Further, in Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansa- gra [Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra, (2019) 20 SCC 753] , this Court observed that while exercising the review jurisdiction in an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114CPC, the re- view court does not sit in appeal over its own order.
34. In another case between Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Assam SEB [Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Assam SEB, (2020) 2 SCC 677 :
(2020) 2 SCC (Civ) 788] , this Court observed that scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114CPC is limited and under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue questions which have already been addressed and decided. It was further observed that 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 record.
35. From the above, it is evident that a power to review cannot be exercised as an appellate power and has to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1CPC. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions."
7. If the aforesaid judgment is read in its entirety, it clearly suggests that power to review can be exercised only upon existence of any of three conditions expressed in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, which also includes "a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record". An error on the face of the record has been held to be such an error which mere looking at the record should strike and it should 6 not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.
8. Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General, vehemently argued that there is an error apparent on the face of the record and as such, judgment sought to be reviewed, may be reviewed. He submitted that respondents have also concealed material fact with regard to duration of PG course, which they could not have completed prior to expiry of 36 months.
9. Before ascertaining correctness of aforesaid submission of learned Advocate General vis-à-vis facts and findings recorded in the judgment, sought to be reviewed, this Court finds it necessary to take note of few facts, which may be relevant for adjudicated of the case at hand.
10. Respondents herein after their having completed MBBS Degree from various colleges across India appeared in NEET PG 2025 Examination for admission in PG courses and they all successfully qualified the same. Review petitioners issued Prospectus for the Session 2021-22 for centralized counselling and admission to Post Graduate Degree (MD/MS) Courses. Respondent Nos. 1 to 28 secured seats in Post Graduate Courses in different subjects at I.G.M.C, Shimla, as direct candidates, whereas respondent Nos. 29 to 46 also secured seats in Post Graduate Courses in different subject at 7 RPGMC, Tanda. After their being given admission in Post Graduate Courses, they, in terms of PG/Super Specialty Policy and Prospectus for the year 2021-22, undertook to serve the State for two years after completion of PG Course, by executing a bond in the sum of Rs.40,00,000/- along with 18% interest per annum along with the salary drawn and also submitted their original MBBS Degrees. Vide Notification dated 27.02.2019, Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Health & Family Welfare notified PG/Super Specialty Policy for regulating admissions to various Post Graduation and Super Specialty Courses in Medical Education. Clause 6 of the said Policy deals with terms & conditions of bond for Post Graduation, Clause 6.8.2 whereof provides that bond condition is not applicable to those direct candidates, in whose case the Government/DHS/DDHS fails to issue any order for field posting within a month of their clearing the PG exam. Afore terms & conditions of bond as per the provisions of PG Policy notified by the Government was further incorporated in the Prospectus as Clause 11. Clause 11.8 of the Prospectus, under the heading "Exception" provides that conditions of bond will not be applicable to those direct candidates, in whose case the Government/ Director Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, fails to issue orders of field posting within a month of their clearing the PG Exams. 8
11. In the case at hand, vide gazette notification dated 07.03.2025, the result of MD/MS final year examination of batch 2021 came to be declared, wherein respondents amongst others were declared successful. Since review petitioners failed to issue posting order of the respondents within a period of one month from the date of declaration of result, respondents filed representation in terms of Clause 6.8.2 of the Policy read with 11.8(ii) of the Prospectus, praying therein to relieve them from the bond condition, but instead of considering aforesaid prayer, review petitioners issued posting orders on 10.04.2025 i.e. after prescribed period of one month. In the afore background, respondents herein approach this Court by way of writ petition bearing CWP No. 6521 of 2025.
12. This Court taking note of pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties and arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, allowed the petition and directed the review petitioners to relieve the respondents from bond condition within a period of one week. In the aforesaid background, instant review petition has been filed on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
13. Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General argued that factum with regard to duration of PG course, which otherwise could not have been completed before expiry of 36 months, was never 9 brought to the notice of this Court, as a result thereof, this Court wrongly arrived at a conclusion that review petitioners failed to issue posting orders within prescribed period of one month after declaration of result. He further submitted that Court also misinterpreted/mislead Clause 6.4 of PG Policy. While referring to para 24 of the judgment, sought to be reviewed, learned Advocate General, specifically referred aforesaid provision and argued that expression "successful clearing of PG exams" used in Clause 6.4 suggests that field posting orders of successful candidate would be issued within a period of one month of declaration of PG result and successful clearing of PG exams, subject to vacancy. He submitted that this Court wrongly interpreted expression "successful clearing of PG exams" by holding that successful clearing of PG exams " has been purposely used to further clarify that only those candidates, who have cleared PG Examination, shall be issued posting orders within a period of one month from the date of declaration of result, whereas correct interpretation of aforesaid expression is that field posting orders of candidates shall be issued after completion of PG course which in no eventuality could have been completed before expiry of 36 months. He further submitted that as per the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023, as notified by the National Medical Commission (NMC) vide notification dated 29.12.2023, the duration of the Post 10 Graduation Degree Courses (MD/MS) is of 36 months including the period of examinations (Annexure R-4). He further submitted that there are many rounds of counseling for admissions to the Post Graduation Courses and period of 36 months of such candidates had/has to be computed from the date of his/her admission of respective course after such rounds of counseling. This Court is not impressed with aforesaid submissions of learned Advocate General for the reason that notification dated 29.12.2023 itself suggests that duration of the Post Graduation Degree courses (MD/MS) is of 36 months including the period of examinations. If it is so, result which in the case at hand came to be declared vide gazette notification dated 07.03.2025 was declared after completion of 36 months. Moreover, this Court is of the definite view that expression "successful clearing of the PG exams" used in Clause 6.4 of the policy cannot be read in isolation, rather same has to be read in conjunction with earlier part of aforesaid clause i.e. "field posting orders of such candidates shall be issued by DHS/DDHS within a month of declaration of PG result and successful clearing of the PG exams, subject to vacancy. Posting orders of the candidates shall be issued within a period of one month from the date of declaration of PG result, but in the case of only those candidates, who successfully cleared the PG exams because no posting orders can be issued in the cases of the candidates, who fails 11 to clear the PG exams. Even if for the sake of arguments it is accepted that interpretation sought to be given by learned Advocate General to aforesaid expression is correct, that may not be sufficient ground to review the petition as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arun Dev Upadhyaya and Thungabhadra Industries Ltd cases (supra).
14. In aforesaid judgments, Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that an error on the face of the record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.
15. Learned Advocate General, while referring following judgments, which are reproduced herein below, also attempted to argue that issue of public interest raised by review petitioners has not been properly appreciated, rather same is totally contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in :-
1. Hira Tikkoo versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and others, (2004) 6 Supreme Court Cases 765;
2. Prithipal Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 10;
3. Association of Medical Superspecialty Aspirants and Residents and others, (2019) 8 Supreme Court Cases 607; and 12
16. In nutshell, learned Advocate General argued that private interest has to give way to larger public interest. While referring to aforesaid judgments, he vehemently argued that though there is no omission, if any, on the part of the review petitioners, while issuing posting orders of the respondents, but even if it is presumed that there was delay in issuing posting orders, this Court could have ignored the same taking note of larger public interest. He further submitted that Court wrongly held that petition filed by a person seeking benefit of policy cannot be opposed on the ground that public interest, especially when he/she can be compensated for loss suffered by him/her, if any, on account of erroneous decision of Government. This Court having taken note of aforesaid judgments sees no reason to take note of the same, especially when while passing judgment, sought to be reviewed, this Court has taken note of latest judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court on the subject i.e. Yamuna Express Industrial Development Authority vs. Shakuntala Education and Welfare Society,(2022) 20 SCC 698 and Abraham Patani vs. State of Maharashtra, (2023)11 SCC 79.
17. True, it is that in aforesaid case, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that private interest has to give way to larger public interest, but aforesaid ruling given by the Hon'ble Apex Court cannot made applicable in the case at hand for the reason that respondents herein 13 are not aggrieved of any policy decision taken by the review petitioners, rather they intend to take benefit of policy decision, which itself provides that in the event of non-issuance of posting order within a period of one month from the date of declaration of result, they shall be relieved from the bond condition. Stipulation in Policy decision as also the Prospectus, not only mandates the issuance of posting order within a month of declaration of result, but also consequences flowing from failure to do so. Once review petitioners themselves provided a window to the respondents in a bond executed by them to exist or relieve from the bond in the event of non-issuance of post order within a period of one month from the date of declaration of result, right accrued in favour of the respondents cannot be permitted to be defeated on the ground of lager public interest.
18. Reliance placed by learned Advocate General upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Association of Medical Superspeciality Aspirants and Residents and others vs. Union of India and others case(supra) is wholly misplaced. In the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court held that State Government is competent to issue executive instructions imposing condition of service bonds at the time of admission to postgraduate courses and Superspeciality courses in medical science and candidate after his/having furnished bond is under obligation to serve the State 14 Government for a period specified in the bond. However, in the instant case bond as came to be executed interse respondents as well as State of Himachal Pradesh, terms and conditions contained in the bond are abided by both the parties. Clause 6 of the bond executed interse parties clearly provides that party shall abide by the PG Policy notified that first party i.e. respondents herein agrees to abide by PG Policy notified by second party in letter and spirit and provision mentioned therein shall be applicable to first party in toto, meaning thereby Clause 6 of PG Policy is binding upon both the parties. Clause 6.8.2 of Policy makes it incumbent upon the review petitioners to issue posting orders within a period of one month from the date of declaration of result, failing which, candidate shall not be bound by the bond condition.
19. Had review petitioners issued posting orders within a period of one month from the date of declaration of result, respondents herein would not have escaped from the condition of serving the State of Himachal Pradesh for two years after their having completed PG/MD course. But once in terms of condition No.6 of the bond, review petitioners i.e. State Government itself failed to do the needful within stipulated time, bond condition shall not be applied to the respondents. There is no refusal, if any, on the part of the respondents to serve the State of Himachal Pradesh for two years in 15 terms of bond condition, but once right has accrued to them in terms of conditions of bond to exit or relieve from the bond condition, they cannot be forced to work for two years.
20. The grounds raised are nothing but reiteration of the grounds urged in petition. The review jurisdiction is not meant to appreciate and re-appreciate the facts already considered and urged. The review petition cannot be equated with original hearing of the case and finality of the order sought to be reviewed cannot be questioned by opening the entire case. The submission made that the decision suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record cannot be accepted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s.Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372, held:
"11. .....a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice for us to say that where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out....."
(P.1377)
21. This Court sees no material irregularity manifest in the order, undermining its correctness or resulting into miscarriage of 16 justice. Needless to say that the review is not an appeal in disguise, entitling a party to be heard, simply because the party wants decision to be otherwise.
22. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 05,2025 (shankar)