Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Gauhati Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi has dismissed a review petition seeking to reopen a previously adjudicated matter concerning the recruitment process for the post of Assistant Professor in Chemistry at Bholanath College, Dhubri. The Court held that the petition failed to satisfy the legal thresholds required for a review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. It further noted that the petition was rendered infructuous due to subsequent developments, including the completion of a fresh recruitment process and non-joining of the originally selected candidate.

In its final judgement, the Court categorically stated that the petition was devoid of merit and reiterated that the power of review cannot be exercised merely to reargue or reassess a previously adjudicated case. Citing precedents from the Supreme Court, the Court affirmed that review jurisdiction is confined to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record or discovering new facts which could not have been produced earlier despite due diligence.

Also Read: SC Cancels Bail In Post-Poll Violence Case | Crime Was A Grave Attack On The Roots Of Democracy | Fair Trial Impossible Amid Political Clout And Witness Intimidation

The matter arose from a recruitment process for the position of Assistant Professor in Chemistry at Bholanath College, Dhubri. The applicant had previously challenged the selection process by way of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5578 of 2020, contesting the legality of modifications introduced in the marking scheme through revised Office Memoranda issued after the advertisement was published but before the interview took place. The principal contention in the original writ petition was that the rules of the recruitment process had been changed midway, thereby allegedly prejudicing the interests of the applicant.

The original petition, along with several other writ petitions concerning similar issues across various colleges, was dismissed by the Court on 09.03.2022. The applicant subsequently filed Writ Appeal No. 278 of 2022 before a Division Bench, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.06.2024, granting liberty to the petitioner to seek review before the Single Bench. Consequently, the present review petition was filed.

The review petition asserted two primary grounds: first, that the judgment dated 09.03.2022 did not discuss the specific facts of the applicant's case; and second, that the revised Office Memoranda had indeed caused prejudice to the applicant. It was claimed that the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Director of Higher Education in WA No. 278/2022 supported the contention that the applicant would have emerged as the first nominee had the original marking scheme been followed. Further, the petitioner argued that the previous Office Memorandum was in alignment with UGC guidelines, and the new scheme deviated from such norms.

Representing the applicant, learned counsel Shri D. Mahanta maintained that the earlier judgement overlooked factual distinctions in the applicant's case and that a review was warranted to rectify the oversight. He urged the Court to reconsider the matter in light of the factual and legal errors allegedly apparent in the impugned judgment.

In response, the State’s learned Standing Counsel, Shri K. Gogoi, appearing for the Education Department, argued that the application did not meet the stringent requirements laid out under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. He also contended that due to subsequent developments, the petition had become infructuous. According to submissions, the originally selected candidate did not join the post, leading to a fresh recruitment process initiated through an advertisement dated 09.12.2022. The applicant participated in the new selection process but was unsuccessful. Further, a new writ petition, WP(C)/7912/2022, challenging the subsequent selection, was already pending adjudication.

Counsel for Bholanath College, Shri A. Borua, supported the Department’s arguments and submitted that the review petition lacked merit, particularly in light of the detailed legal reasoning already provided in the original judgment. He acknowledged that the specific facts of the applicant's case were not individually discussed in the judgment but maintained that the legal findings and conclusions comprehensively addressed the issues at hand.

The Court recorded that in the earlier selection, the applicant ranked fourth in the merit list and therefore could not claim prejudice based on the revised marking scheme. It also noted that the interim order in WP(C)/7912/2022 had prevented the appointment of the new selectee, who subsequently joined another college.

"It is needless to reiterate that it is only on limited grounds where a review Court could exercise its powers which are: a) Discovery of new and important facts which were not within the knowledge of the party even by exercise of due diligence; b) Detecting an error apparent on the face of the record; c) Any other sufficient reasons."

The Court recorded that the scope of review is strictly confined and should not serve as an opportunity to reopen or reargue a matter already decided. It cited the Supreme Court judgment in MM Thomas vs. State of Kerala (2000) 1 SCC 666, which held:

"The High Court as a court of record, as envisaged in Article 215 of the Constitution, must have inherent powers to correct the records... The High Court has not only power, but a duty to correct it."

It further noted observations from Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Pratibha Industries Ltd. (2019) 3 SCC 203, which reaffirmed the limited and corrective nature of review jurisdiction.

Addressing the specific grounds raised in the review petition, the Court observed: "As regards the first ground that the facts of the present writ petition were not specifically discussed, the same factually appears to be correct. However, the point of law involved was the same with that of the other writ petitions in which this Court had come to a conclusion after elaborate discussion. Therefore, the said ground may not be a sufficient ground to review the judgment in question."

On the second ground of alleged prejudice due to the revised Office Memorandum, the Court found: "The said ground is on the merits of the case and cannot be reopened and treated as a ground for review. As observed above, to maintain a review, the error has to be an error apparent on the face of the records."

The Court reiterated legal principles enunciated in Parison Devi vs. Sumitri Devi (1997) 8 SCC 715 and Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Alagendran Exports Ltd. (2004) 13 SCC 377, which clarified that the mere possibility of another view cannot justify a review.

Further referencing S. Madhusudhan Reddy vs. V. Narayana Reddy & Ors. (2022 SCC OnLine 1034), the Court recorded: "Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice."

"A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error."

"The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition."

Also Read: Neither The Appellant Nor The Private Respondents Could Have Been Appointed But For Equitable Jurisdiction | J&K High Court Refuses Retrospective Appointment, Upholds Seniority Based On Merit

Finally, the Court also took note of subsequent developments rendering the application infructuous: "It has also been brought to light that the said incumbent has also, in the meantime, joined another College. Therefore, this Court finds force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents that for all practical purpose, the present application has otherwise also become infructuous."

In its conclusive directions, the Court c dismissed the review petition, holding:

"This Court is of the opinion that the present application for review is without any merits and the same is accordingly dismissed."

No further reliefs were granted, and the Court declined to pass any order as to costs:

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Shri D. Mahanta, Advocate

For the Respondents: Shri K. Gogoi, Standing Counsel – Education Department; Shri A. Borua, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 to 5

Case Title: Dr Ruhul Amin Bepari v. State of Assam and Ors.

Neutral Citation: GAHC010149552024

Case Number: Review Petition No. 137 of 2024

Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi

[Read/Download order]