“No Continuity Without Quashing of Removal”: Chhattisgarh High Court Finds No “Error Apparent”, Upholds Reappointment Without Seniority in Dismissing Review Petition
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, Single Bench of Justice Parth Prateem Sahu dismissed a review petition filed against the Court's earlier order dated 05.08.2013 in a batch of writ petitions. The review petition, REVP No. 97 of 2024, was reserved for orders on 17.01.2025 and disposed of on 27.03.2025. The Court reaffirmed that the petitioners were reappointed employees and not entitled to seniority from the date of initial appointment, citing lack of error apparent on the face of record.
The petitioners, eleven in number, were teachers serving in various government schools across districts of Janjgir-Champa and Sakti, Chhattisgarh. They challenged the order dated 05.08.2013 in W.P.(S.) No. 7193 of 2008 and connected writ petitions, which had rejected their claim for seniority from the date of their initial appointments.
The petitioners had originally been appointed on 13.09.1983 but their appointments were cancelled between 1984 and 1997. Following this, they filed Original Application No. 1070/1997 before the State Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal, by order dated 22.03.1997, directed that if the petitioners were similarly situated to others eligible for regularization, their cases be considered accordingly.
Pursuant to this, the State issued fresh appointment orders dated 16.03.1998, which referred to their status as "reappointments" and not as regularizations. This reappointment status was never challenged by the petitioners.
The petitioners filed writ petitions claiming seniority benefits from their original appointments in 1983, arguing that the Tribunal's order entitled them to continuity of service. However, the writ petitions were dismissed. A subsequent writ appeal was also dismissed. When the matter was taken to the Supreme Court in an SLP, the petitioners were granted liberty to file a review petition instead.
According to the petitioners, the earlier decision failed to consider the Tribunal's observation regarding their eligibility for regularization. They contended that the Court erroneously treated them as reappointed instead of regularized, leading to a rejection of their claim to seniority from the original date of appointment.
The State opposed the review, asserting that the issue had already been comprehensively addressed in the original writ petition decision. The respondents maintained that no error apparent on the record justified invoking the review jurisdiction.
The Court examined the submissions, including prior decisions and relevant documentation. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu observed that the fresh appointments were categorically referred to as "reappointments" and this fact was undisputed and not challenged.
Referring to the previous order, the Court stated:
"The petitioners are entitled to seniority from the date of appointment, as per provisions of law. Thus, there is no merit in the case."
It was further observed:
"From the contents of paragraph 8 and 10, it is apparent that submission made by learned counsel for petitioners therein with respect to claim of regularization of other employees and observation made by Tribunal in original application No. 1070 / 1997 was considered and thereafter, writ petition was dismissed."
On the legal framework for review, the Court reiterated that review jurisdiction under Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure is limited to correcting errors that are apparent on the face of the record. Citing multiple Supreme Court judgements, the Court held that the review petitioners had not demonstrated such an error.
In paragraph 8, the Court recorded:
"The scope of review under Order 47 of C.P.C. is very limited. Powers under the review jurisdiction can be exercised only when the Court finds that there is an error apparent on the face of record / order."
Referencing Parson Devi v. Sumitri Devi, the Court noted:
"There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record... the latter only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction."
The Court also relied on Surendra Kumar Vakil v. Chief Executive Officer, MP, observing:
"A point that has been heard and decided cannot form a ground for review even if assuming that the view taken in the judgment under review is erroneous."
In Asharfi Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court cited:
"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."
The Court stated these principles in view of the petitioners' failure to challenge the reappointment order and the earlier comprehensive dismissal of their claims.
The Court dismissed the review petition, finding no merit in the claims stating:
"Accordingly, review petition being sans merit is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For Petitioners: Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate
For State: Ms. Mukta Tripathi, Panel Lawyer
Case Title: Hiralal Kashyap & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: CGHC:3238
Case Number: REVP No. 97 of 2024
Bench: Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
[Read/Download order]
