Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
The Joint Secretary (Ad) vs Shri Jaswant Singh on 15 May, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH : NEW DELHI R.A. N0. 90/2013 and MA No. 1155/2013 and MA No.1156/2013 IN O.A. No.992/2012 New Delhi this the 15th day of May, 2013 HONBLE SHRI G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J) HONBLE SHRI SHEKHAR AGARWAL, MEMBER (A) Union of India, through The Foreign Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, South Block, New Delhi-110011.
The Joint Secretary (AD), Ministry of External Affairs, South Block, New Delhi-110011. .Petitioners in the RA/ Respondents in the OA VERSUS Shri Jaswant Singh, S/o Shri Pritam Singh, R/o J-79, Sri Niwas Puri, Delhi-110065. ..Respondent No.1 in the RA/Original Applicant in the OA.
Union Public Service Commission, Through its Chairman, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110011. .Respondent No.2 in the RA/ Respondent No.1 in the OA ORDER BY CIRCULATION By Shri G. George Paracken:
MA No. 1155/2013 in RA No. 90/2013 This MA has been filed by the Respondents seeking a direction to stay the operation of the order dated 06.03.2013 passed in OA No. 992/2012.
MA No. 1556/2013 in RA No. 90/2013
2. This MA has been by the Review Applicants for condonation of delay in filing the present Review Application. They have stated that on receipt of the aforesaid order dated 03.03.2013, the same was processed as per the functioning of the Government and after consideration of the matter at various levels, it was found by the competent authority that the judgment is not in consonance with the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 and is thus not amenable to implementation in its present form. Therefore, the competent authority has taken the decision to approach this Tribunal for review of order dated 06.03.2013. They have thus stated that in the facts and circumstances of the case it was just and proper for this Tribunal to condone the delay. RA No.90/2013 In OA No.992/2012
3. This Review Application has been filed by the Respondents in OA No. 992/2012 which was allowed vide order dated 06.03.2013. The operative part of the said order reads as under:
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the Applicant, Shri Ashwani Kumar Dhatwalia and the learned counsel for the Respondents, Shri D.S. Mahendru. We have also perused the documents available on record. It is seen that the Central Secretariat Service (CSS) and the Indian Foreign Service (IFS) Rules are distinct and separate. Only the CCS (Rules) 1962 have been amended and provisions for holding SLDE has been taken away. However, the IFS Rules, 1964 remain without any change. Moreover, the purpose of DOPT acting as the Nodal Ministry is to coordinate the various participating Ministries under the CCS cadre. Of course, when the CCS Rules have been amended and provisions for holding the SLDE has been taken away, there is no need for the DOP&T to serve as the Nodal Ministry for the said purpose. Therefore, now the Ministry of External Affairs itself has to coordinate with the UPSC to conduct the SLDE as provided in the IFS Rules.
8. We, therefore, direct the respondent No.1 to act in place of the DOP&T for the purpose of holding the LDCE for the Grade-I IFS(B) i.e. Under Secretary. They shall in coordination with the UPSC notify the Rules for the examination within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the UPSC shall hold the examination at the earliest but in any case within four months. With the aforesaid directions, this OA is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
4. The Respondents have sought review of the aforesaid order on the following main grounds:
In para 8 of the order/judgement, this Honble Tribunal has directed the respondent No. 1 to act in place of the DOP&T for the purpose of holding the LDCE for the Grade-I IFS(B), i.e. under Secretary and also directed that they shall in coordination with the UPSC notify the Rules for the examination within two months. However, it is respectfully submitted that the applicant has impleaded UPSC as respondent No. 1 in the aforesaid OA, therefore, there is no question of UPSC notifying rules for the examination in coordination with itself.
Because the directions of this Honble Tribunal in paras 7 and 8 of the order/judgement dated 06.03.2013, under reference, are not in conformity with each other.
Because the respondent No. 1 herein (applicant in OA) has not prayed in the aforesaid OA for notifying the Rules for the examination and thus the relief granted by this Honble Tribunal vide the order/judgement sought to be reviewed is even beyond the prayer made in the OA.
Because the primary prayer of the respondent No. 1 herein (applicant in OA) in the aforesaid OA was to direct the respondent No. 1 (UPSC) to conduct the Special Limited Departmental Examination (SLDE) for filling up the unfilled existing SC/ST vacancies in Under Secretary (Grade-I) of IFS (B) and there is no prayer of the applicant for direction to the Ministry of External Affairs for conducting the SLDE. Therefore, the directions of this Honble Tribunal to the Ministry of External Affairs in para 7 is beyond the prayer of the applicant in the OA.
Because the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules 1961, allocate the subject of Reservation of posts in Services for certain classes of citizens to the Departmental of Personnel and Training in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions.
Because when neither any specific prayer has been made by the applicant in the OA against the respondents No. 2 & 3 nor any cause of action has accured to the applicant against the respondents No. 2 & 3 in the OA, any direction to respondents No. 2 & 3 in the OA may not be just, appropriate and difficult to implement in terms of their mandate under Allocation of Business Rules.
5. We have considered the aforesaid submissions of the Review Applicants. Under Rule 17 (i) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 no application for review shall be entertained unless it is filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order sought to be reviewed. It is seen that the order under review has been passed on 06.03.2013 and the same was issued to the Respondents on 19.03.2013. However, RA was filed on 18.4.2013 therefore, this RA is barred by limitation. Moreover, the reasons given by the Respondents in MA No. 1156/2013 seeking condonation of delay in filing this RA also cannot be appreciated. They have stated in a very casual manner that after receipt of the aforesaid order of this Tribunal it was considered as per the functioning of the Government and found that the same was not amenable to implementation.
5. In our considered view, the grounds taken by the Petitioners seeking review of this Tribunals order dated 06.03.2013 are also not tenable. The scope of Review Application is very limited. It shall be within the parameters of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, 1908. According to the said provisions, a review will lie only on the following grounds:-
1. Application for review of judgment.- (1) 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 is allowed, or (C) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and 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.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review..
6. In the present case, we do not find any such eventualities to review the aforesaid order dated 06.03.2013.
7. In Parsion Devi and Others vs. Sumitri Devi and Others [1997 (8) SCC 715], the Apex Court has held as under:-
"Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent 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 under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". 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 the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise"."
8. In Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa (1999 (9) SCC 596), the Apex Court reiterated that power of review vested in the Tribunal is similar to the one conferred upon a Civil Court and held:-
The provisions extracted above indicate that the power of review available to the Tribunal is the same as has been given to a court under Section 114 read with Order 47 CPC. The power is not absolute and is hedged in by the restrictions indicated in Order 47. The power can be exercised on the application of a person on 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 order was made. The power can also be exercised on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. A review cannot be claimed or asked for merely for a fresh hearing or arguments or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier, that is to say, the power of review can be exercised only for correction of a patent error of law or fact which stares in the face without any elaborate argument being needed for establishing it. It may be pointed out that the expression "any other sufficient reason" used in Order 47 Rule 1 means a reason sufficiently analogous to those specified in the rule. Any other attempt, except an attempt to correct an apparent error or an attempt not based on any ground set out in Order 47, would amount to an abuse of the liberty given to the Tribunal under the Act to review its judgment.
9. In view of the above position, we are not inclined to entertain this Review Application and the accompanying Miscellaneous Applications both on the ground of limitation and merits. Accordingly, they are dismissed. Consequently, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Shekhar Agarwal) ( G. George Paracken ) Member (A) Member (J) Rakesh