Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Suraj Kumar vs Eastern Railway on 13 December, 2023
i ' : _ I 1 z . . B OPEES, Spy = i _-- . i wh f f oa i
- 1 4 fi ; :
. . . ca a CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH | Sr KOLKATA .
RA. 350/23/2023 os Date oforder: V9 \202> (0.A.350/1 137/2019) a .
Coram: : Hon'ble-Mr. Anindo Majumdar, Administrative Member : SURAJ KUMAR : vievetereees Petitioner (original applicant) a -, -Versus-
EASTERN RAILWAY "seeeeeeeees Opponent (Original respondents) For the, Review Applicants : Mr. A. P. Deb, Counsel | For the opposite party : Nongnistra tin : : ran 1 r H se ff SWZ {= 0) EDIE R : tO 7, = ! . \ are as ve .
Per: Hon'ble Mr. Anindo Maiunidar, *drmiinistrative Member NS Bea y Rega roe The present R.A. has been 'filed-by-thé-otiginal applicant to review the order ". passed'by this Tribunal dated 10.07.2023 in O.A:/1137/2019. t
2. This Tribunal, while disposing of the O.A. 350/1137/2019, had made the following observations in para 10 and 11 therein:-
"40, Thereafter, in response to a letter of Eastem Railway No. E 1 025/2/Misc./Law/Asst./Selection/PLIV dated 21.8.2015 seeking options for consideration against vacant posts of Law Assistant, the applicant submitted his option and. he therefore got an opportunity to appear in the examination for appointment to. the said post. However, the applicant was not selected for the _ post of Law Assistant on the basis of his performance in the examination held on
- 19.2.2016. As per the applicant's own admission in the O.A., he secured one marks less than the qualifying (cut of mark) in the said examination. '41. Since the applicant did not qualify in the written examination for selection for the post of Law Assistant, there is no merit in this O.A."
3, 'The Review Applicant states that in total 11 vacancies were notified for the post of Chief Law- Assistant (UR-8 SC 2, ST -- I) as per the circular dated L 4 © 19.02.2016 and the applicant had duly filled up and submitted the. said proforma within the stipulated date. The Applicant submits that in O.A. 1137 of 2019, he had prayed 'for re-evaluation of the answer script and also for quashing of-the reply -- dated 30.05.2019 issued by the competent respondent authority which, according to him, is a cryptic one since no reason has been assigned for rejecting his claim. - The applicant had requested for re-evaluation of the answer to the Q. No., 1(9) and
111) of Group-B as per the nodal Answer. He states that nowhere in the said Speaking' Order dated 30.05.2019 it has been stated that the said answers were tallied with nodal ; answer. | It is further stated that the applicant had obtained two (2) marks less than that of the cut-off mark and thus prayed for re-evaluation of answer script, after obtaining that through R.T.I. anistrag> Hence, he prays that the ordér Nie 2023 passed in O.A. No. 1137 of "
' 2019 be modified to the extent & of déclarine= ©, order dated 30.05.2019 as invalid and remitting the answer script i Breaval By afresh on the basis of the nodal enka oy ane airs answer as also in terms of relevant Railway "Circulars. The fact of obtaining less marks"in the written examination has already been dealt with which deciding the 'OA. and hence the said issue cannot be reopened by way of filing a Review Application. | 4, The scope of review of an order under order 47 Rule 1 CPC states as follows:
"Any person considering himself aggrieved --
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred.
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal i is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference froma : Court of Small Causes, cand who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, 'after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not 'be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, " or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against-him, may apply for a review of judgment to __ the Court which passed the decree or made the order." | Accordingly, a review is maintainable on the following grounds:
Dy: Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;
li) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
iii) | Any other sufficient reason.
Tribunal's power to review its own order the above grounds has been well recognised as ruled by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Gopal Singh VS. State Cadre Forest Officers' Assn, and Others, (2007)9 SCC 369]. * The Hon'ble Apex Court in Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma yv. Aribam Pishak Sharma (1979) 4 SCC 389=AIR 1 979 SC 1047 has held that there are definite limits to the exercise of the power oe neviiegy NN in n particular, that the power of review may not be exercised OR Da a decision was erroneous on "nm ones merits. That would be the prove , Ai EVof a A power of review is not to Ks, ) / be confused with appellate power' whichmniay-enable an ap, ellate court to correct IPP eee P all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court"
In Parsion Devi & Ors vs Sumitri Devi & Ors (1997) 8 SCC 715, the Hon'ble | Court held that "In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected: A review petition, it must be remembered has limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."
In the State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. Kamal Sengupta and Anr., reported in (2008) 8 SCC 612, the Hon'ble Apex Court had stated as follows:
"where a review is: sought on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence, such matter or evidence must be relevant and must be of such a character that if the same had been produced, it might have altered the. judgment."
, i © Hence, the principle derived from the above judgments (supra) may be summed up as follows:-
(iti}
(iv) development canno ibe The power of the Tribunal to review its order/decision under Section 22(3) (£) of the Act is akin/analogous-to the power of a civil court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. .
The Tribunal can reviéw its decision on either of the grounds enumerated. in Order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise. ; The expression "any other sufficient reason" appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specified grounds. An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(3) (f). An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review.
A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3).(f) on the basis of subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench of the © tribunal or of a superior court.
While considering an application for review, the tribunal must confine its adjudication with refereygce te: material which was available at the time Wwe of for declaring the initial order/decision as vitiatéd byanlSiror apparent. Mere discovery of new Gdinportant, anatter or evidence is not sufficient Xe pee ground for review. The pantyseeking xeview has also to show that such matter or evidence was 'notowithin its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the of initial decision. aie & ippeayr some subsequent event or court/tribunal earlier."
5. This review applicant has not established:
(a) that there are any errors or mistakes apparent on the face of record.
_ (b)That new or important matters that were not within his knowledge/possession was subsequently furnished in this review application, and, this Tribunal had already 'considered all the grounds inentioned by the applicant in her review application while arriving at its I eo decision.
I } Has not advanced in any other sufficient reason in the light of other specified grounds. . ae 4 | 'Considering the above legal position and the grounds raised by the applicant in the present review - application, there is hardly any scope for review of the order " dated 10. 7. 2023 of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 350/01 137/2019. | a . .
6. In view of the above, I do not consider the review application as sustainable and reject the same on merits.
4
a) No costs.
(Anindo Majumdar} Administrative Member