1998 (4) TMI 550 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for Promotion to Indian Police Service (I.P.S.) Cadre.
2. Tribunal's Power to Review its Own Decisions.
3. Finality of Tribunal's Judgment Post Supreme Court's Dismissal of Special Leave Petition.
4. Status of Review Applicants as "Persons Aggrieved".

Summary:

1. Eligibility for Promotion to Indian Police Service (I.P.S.) Cadre:
The appellant, Gopabandhu Biswal, was not considered for promotion to the I.P.S. cadre because, according to the respondents, only Deputy Superintendents of Police in the Orissa Police force were eligible for such promotion. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, initially held that the posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police and Assistant Commandant of the Orissa Military Police constituted a single cadre prior to 5th November 1980, and directed that Biswal's case be considered for promotion from 1.1.1977 to January 1980. However, this decision was later reviewed and reversed by the Tribunal, which held that the two cadres were separate from inception and that Assistant Commandants were not eligible for promotion to the I.P.S.

2. Tribunal's Power to Review its Own Decisions:
Section 22(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, confers on an Administrative Tribunal the same powers as a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, including the power of reviewing its decisions (u/s 22(3)(f)). The Tribunal's power to review is similar to that of a civil court under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows for review on grounds such as the discovery of new evidence or an error apparent on the face of the record.

3. Finality of Tribunal's Judgment Post Supreme Court's Dismissal of Special Leave Petition:
Once a special leave petition (S.L.P.) is filed and rejected by the Supreme Court, the judgment of the Tribunal becomes final and binding. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal could not review its decision after the S.L.P. was dismissed, as it would be "deleterious to judicial discipline." This principle was reaffirmed in several cases, including State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Prabhakar Bhikaji Ingle and Sree Narayana Dharmasanghom Trust v. Swami Prakasananda & Ors.

4. Status of Review Applicants as "Persons Aggrieved":
The review applicants, who were not parties to the original petition or the S.L.P., claimed to be "persons aggrieved" by the Tribunal's judgment. However, the Supreme Court held that even if they were considered "persons aggrieved," they could not seek a review of a judgment that had attained finality by virtue of the Supreme Court's order. The Court emphasized that only persons directly and immediately affected by the impugned order could be considered "parties aggrieved" u/s 22(3)(f) read with Order 47 Rule 1.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Tribunal's order in the review applications, and remanded the Original Applications Nos. 276, 277, and 278 of 1993 for fresh consideration by the Tribunal in accordance with law. The Tribunal was directed to either follow its earlier judgment or refer the question to a larger Bench if reconsideration was deemed necessary. There was no order as to costs.