Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Rajesh Kumar Mishra vs General Manager D.L.W., Varanasi on 27 March, 2023
Review Application No. 11/2023 in O.A. No. 1653/2015
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
Review Application No. 11/2023 in O.A. No. 1653/2015
This the 27th day of March, 2023
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr.Sanjiv Kumar,Member (A)
Rajesh Kumar Mishra s/o Shri Awadh Behari Mishra staff No.
12922, presently working as Senior Section Engineer in Production
Control Office, DLW, Varanasi, r/o 927 A, DLW, Varanasi-221004.
Applicant
By Advocate: Sri A.K.Dave
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, Diesel
Locomotive Works, Varanasi.
2. General Manager, Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi.
3. Chief Personnel Officer, Diesel Locomotive Works,
Varanasi.
4. Dy. Chief Personnel Officer/ HQ, Diesel Locomotive
Works, Varanasi.
5. Chief Mechanical Engineer, DLW, Varanasi.
6. Assistant Personnel Officer/ IRDLW, Varanasi.
7. S.K. Kundra, Assistant Design Engineer,Staff No. 08898,
DLW,Varanasi.
Respondent
ORDER (Under Circulation)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH -VII, MEMBER(J) The present Review Application is preferred by the applicant of the O.A. under Rule 17 of Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 for reviewing the order dated 15.2.2023 passed in O.A. No. 1653/2015, by which the Tribunal after hearing both the learned counsel for the parties at length, passed the following orders:-
"14. In the present case, the evaluation was done by the expert committee and committee has not awarded any marks to the applicant to the disputed questions because applicant has given wrong answers to those questions, If we direct for re-evaluation of the answer sheet, all candidates will suffer. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied. Selection process is complete and all selected candidates have joined on the promotional post in the year 2015. More than 08 years have passed and now much water has flown. Applicant has not raised any objection before the respondents as has been pleaded in the present matter at the time of publishing of model answer sheet. Thus, it will not be fair to direct the respondents to re- evaluate the answer sheet at this stage. Respondents have passed a detailed and speaking order. We do not find any illegality in the selection process or in the impugned order Page 1 of 3 Review Application No. 11/2023 in O.A. No. 1653/2015 and applicant is not entitled for any relief and O.A.is liable to be dismissed.
15. Accordingly, O.A. is dismissed."
2. Learned counsel for the applicant in O.A. has filed the present Review application on the ground that while deciding the O.A., Hon'ble Tribunal did not consider the submissions made by the applicant in the O.A. as well as Rejoinder Affidavit and reiterated the same facts in the Review as stated in the Original Application. In para 18 of the Review Application, it is stated that in the above mentioned list of DPC, the name of respondent No. 7 Sri S.K. Kundra has been shown to have obtained aggregate marks 253.8 including the 6 marks of those questions on which the applicant has not been awarded any marks, despite the correct answer.
3. In para 9 of the judgment, this Tribunal has clearly observed that respondents while deciding the representation of the applicant passed a detailed and speaking order dated 3.9.2015 and have considered all the queries raised by the applicant and also mentioned the details of answers given by the applicant of the disputed questions and correct answer of that questions and from perusal of the same, it is clear that applicant has given wrong answers of those questions. Every details have been discussed in para 9 of the judgment. It is also stated in this para that model answer sheet was published by the respondents and vide letter dated 20.5.2015, whole answer script was provided to the applicant. Merely refusing to provide model answer sheet to third party does not mean that model answer sheet was not published. As far as 6 marks awarded to respondent No. 7 to the same disputed questions on which the marks were not allotted to the applicant is concerned, it is worthwhile to mention here that this plea has not been taken by the applicant in the O.A. Only in para 4.26 of the O.A. , it has been stated that "Respondent No. 7 Sri S.K. Kundra has been shown to have obtained aggregate 253.8 shown at Sl. No. 24 in the above mentioned list of DPC, as such the applicant had full chance to have been empanelled instead of respondent No. 7." It is also submitted that at the time of passing of the judgment, answer sheet of respondent No. 7 was not available on record whereas it was the clear cut case of the respondents that applicant had given wrong answer to those disputed questions for Page 2 of 3 Review Application No. 11/2023 in O.A. No. 1653/2015 which marks were not allotted to him, this court did not find it appropriate to call the record of respondent No. 7.
4. By means of the present review application, the applicant has tried to re-open the entire issue afresh.
5. The scope of review is very limited. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Meera Bhanja vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, that review proceedings cannot be considered by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC and review petition is required to be entertained only on the ground of error apparent on the face of record. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also been pleased to observe that while deciding the review, the matter cannot be re-apprised and only typographical error apparent on record can be reviewed.
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Inder Chand Jain(Dead) Through Lrs, Vs. Motilal (Dead) Through Lrs. Reported in (2009) 14 SCC 663 has been pleased to observe as under:-
10. 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 or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order.
7. The scope of review is very limited and it is not permissible for the Tribunal to act as an appellate authority in respect of original order passing a fresh order and re-hearing of the matter to facilitate a change of opinion on merits.
8. Considering the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any error apparent on the face of record in the order dated 15.2.2023. Accordingly, the Review Application is dismissed.
9. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Sanjiv Kumar) (Justice Om Prakash-VII)
Member (A) Member (A)
HLS/-
Page 3 of 3