Hari Singh Rana vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 July, 2025

[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Hari Singh Rana vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 July, 2025

1. Petitioners have filed this review petition under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with the prayer that the order dated 8.10.2018 passed in WPS No.2595/2017 be set aside while quashing the amendment Notification dated 3.6.2017 issued by the State Government.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the guidelines dated 7.1.2016 issued by the Director General of Training recommending to promote diploma/degree holders along with CTS holders are not mandatory or binding and therefore, other State Governments have not implemented the same in their respective States. However, respondent State pursuant to guidelines dated 7.1.2016 of the Director General of Training, Govt. of India, New Delhi, issued the impugned notification dated 3.6.2017 the holders of CTS are 8 also held eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Principal II or Group Instructor. This inclusion of holders of CTS certificate not only amounts to violation of the guidelines issued by the DOT, standards which are required to be maintained for the post of Principal but also reduce the promotional chances of the petitioners and also cause trauma to the diploma/degree holders in Engineering of working under certificate holders. He next contended that the impugned amendment is prejudicial to the interest of petitioners and other similarly situated persons, it is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative to the rights of petitioners guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the impugned notification dated 3.6.2017 be quashed.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective respondents supported the order under review.

4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the order which is sought to be reviewed.

5. Petitioners herein have preferred writ petition bearing WPS No.2595/2017 challenging the constitutional validity of amendment brought in Chhattisgarh Industrial Training (Gazetted) Service (Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 2013 and amendment made therein vide Notification 9 dated 3.6.2017. Said writ petition stands dismissed vide order dated 8.10.2018 observing thus:-

"3. We are not concerned about the other changes. The attack is on the dilution which has been made by way of amendment in the year 2017 where not only the Training Superintendents/Technical Assistants but also the holders of certificate of Craftsmen Training Scheme (CTS), issued by the National Council of Vocational Training (NCVT), were given avenues of promotion to the post of Principal Class II / Vice Principal.

4. Argument on behalf of the petitioners is that all along the Central Government, especially the Director General of Training, have laid down minimum standards and requirements for appointment and promotion in the IITs across the country and all along they have insisted on a minimum degree of engineering or diploma in engineering for any promotion to the post of Principal Class-II / Vice Principal. However, the State Government by allowing such certificate holders of vocational training would be doing violence to the guidelines as well as standards which were required to be maintained for holders of post of Principal Class-II / Vice Principal.

5. Argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners could have merited consideration provided the original standards and norms which the petitioners had talked about remained so and still occupied the field. There cannot be any argument that the standards and norms are laid down by the Central Government and all the State authorities, by and large, are required to adhere to the same.

7.If the norms and standards have been revisited by the Central Government, which has the authority to notify and issue directions, and if the State authorities thereafter have followed the same and brought about changes to the Rules to harmonize the two, merely because these petitioners 10 apprehend that new norms may come in the way of their future promotional prospects by more claimants, that cannot become a ground for setting aside such amendment as unconstitutional.

8. Nothing has been pointed out to us as to how the said amendment notified by the State Government lacks legislative competence or violates any other constitutional provision including Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

9. The challenge, therefore, made in these two writ applications are basically a futile effort to block the future avenues of promotion which have been created for the career progression for Instructors of IITs."

6. Perusal of the contents of review petition would show that the only ground upon which review petitioners have harped upon is the reduction of chances of their promotion because by way of impugned Notification, the respondent State made unequal as equal and therefore, action of respondent State is opposed to the principles enunciated under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The grounds raised in review petition are the same which have already been raised in writ petition and duly considered and rejected by this Court in the order sought to be reviewed and therefore, now the review petitioners will not be again permitted to ask for re- appreciation of facts and grounds already considered and decided. No other ground pointed out by the petitioners showing any manifest error on the record and has not further brought into notice any new facts, which could not be 11 produced earlier despite diligent efforts made by petitioners. Rather it appears that the petitioners by filing this review petition seek an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on merits, which is not permissible and tenable. It is well settled in law that in the guise of review, rehearing is not permissible. In order to seek review it has to be demonstrated that order suffers from error apparent on the face of record. The scope of review is very limited and an order or judgment is open to review only if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of record. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. Meera Bhanja vs Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported in AIR 1995 SC 455 has observed thus:

"8. It is well settled law that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII, Rule 1, CPC. In connection with the limitation of the powers of the Court under Order XLVII, Rule 1, while dealing with similar jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking to review the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court, in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J. has made the following pertinent observations:

"It is true there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it......."

7. In case of Asharfi Devi (dead) through Lrs Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 86, it was held thus:-

"18. It is a settled law that every error whether factual or legal cannot be made subject matter of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code though it can be made subject matter of appeal arising out of such order. In other words, in order to attract the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code, the error/mistake must be apparent on the face of the record of the case."

8. In case of Shanti Conductors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assam State Electricity Board and others, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 677, it was held thus:-

"25. .......The scope of review has been reiterated by this Court from time to time. It is sufficient to refer the judgment of this Court in Parsion Devi and Others Vs. Sumitri Devi and Others, (1997) 8 SCC 715, wherein in paragraph 9 following has been laid down:

"9. 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". A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise"."

9. Keeping in mind the decisions quoted above and considering the ground raised by review petitioners in this review petition, this Court is of considered view that review petitioners failed to point any error apparent on the face of record warranting review of the order dated 8.10.2018.

10. As a sequel, the review petition, sans susbstratum is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.

                              Sd/-                                  Sd/-
                       (Parth Prateem Sahu)                    (Ramesh Sinha)
       Digitally           Judge                                Chief Justice
SYED   signed
ROSHAN by SYED
ZAMIR  ROSHAN
ALI    ZAMIR
       ALI




            roshan/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Chattisgarh High Court