Delhi High Court
Irteza Zulfikar vs Rites Ltd. And Anr. on 29 September, 2020
Bench: Siddharth Mridul, Talwant Singh
#11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Delivered On: 29.09.2020
W.P.(C) 9966/2017
IRTEZA ZULFIKAR .....Petitioner
versus
RITES LTD. AND ANR. ......Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shankar Raju and Mr. Nilansh Gaur,
Advocates
For the Respondents : Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Senior Advocate with Mr.
G.S. Chaturvedi, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
JUDGMENT
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J. (Open Court - via Video Conferencing) REVIEW PET. 116/2020 in W.P.(C) 9966/2017
1. The present review petition under the provisions analogous to Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC'), has been instituted on behalf of the RITES Ltd., seeking review of the order dated 21.01.2020, passed by this Court in Writ W.P.(C) 9966/2017 Page 1 of 4 Petition (Civil) No.9966/2017, whereby they had been directed to consider the case of the original petitioner in the writ petition for regularisation, subject to availability of vacancy, in terms of the Rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules, read with Policy dated 13.12.2013, as and when vacancy occurs in the lowest post in Executive Cluster-I, subject of course to the petitioner fulfilling all other eligibility conditions.
2. Mr. Kailash Vasdev, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the review petitioner, has, in sum and substance, urged that, there is an error apparent on the face of the record of the order, of which review is sought, inasmuch as, the same failed to consider that, the petitioner was not in service on the date, the Court directed RITES Ltd. to consider her for regularisation.
3. Mr. Shankar Raju, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original petitioner, on the contrary would urge that, the ground asseverated on behalf of the review petitioner is outside the scope and ambit of the provisions of Order XLVII CPC and do not constitute a valid ground for review of this Court's order dated 21.01.2020.
4. Mr. Shankar Raju, learned counsel has invited our attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Kamal Sen Gupta and Anr.' reported as (2008) 8 SCC 612 W.P.(C) 9966/2017 Page 2 of 4 and, in particular, paragraphs 35 thereof, to urge that, the power of review can only be exercised, on the grounds enumerated in Order XLVII, Rule 1 CPC and not otherwise and further that, an error which is not self-evident and which must be discovered by long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the power of review.
5. Lastly, our attention has been invited to (v) of paragraph 35, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court enunciated the principles for the exercise of the power of review by holding that, an erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review. In other words, it is the submission of Mr. Shankar Raju, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original petitioner that, the present review petition is nothing but an attempt to reargue the case, which has already been adjudicated by this Court, by way of the order dated 21.01.2020.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the order dated 21.01.2020, of which review is sought and, in particular, paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11, we are of the view that, no cogent grounds for review of the said order, specifically on the W.P.(C) 9966/2017 Page 3 of 4 assertion that, there is an error apparent on the face of the record, has been made out.
7. The review being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed and disposed of.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL (JUDGE) TALWANT SINGH (JUDGE) SEPTEMBER 29, 2020 dn/pa Click here to check corrigendum, if any W.P.(C) 9966/2017 Page 4 of 4