2024 (5) TMI 1451 - HC - Indian Laws

Scope of review jurisdiction - error apparent on the face of the record - suppression of material fact in relating to the involvement of the respondents in the criminal cases by itself would incur the disqualification to be appointed to the post of constable and RSI - HELD THAT - In PARSION DEVI AND OTHERS VERSUS SUMITRI DEVI AND OTHERS 1997 (10) TMI 369 - SUPREME COURT the Hon ble Apex Court observed that an error that is not self-evident and the one that has to be detected by the process of reasoning cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise the powers of review. In LILY THOMAS, ETC. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. 2000 (5) TMI 1045 - SUPREME COURT the Hon ble Apex Court held that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. In ARIBAM TULESHWAR SHARMA VERSUS ARIBAM PISHAK SHARMA 1979 (1) TMI 228 - SUPREME COURT , the Hon ble Apex Court observed that there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution of India to preclude a 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 pulpable errors committed by it. But there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. It may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found. It may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. In KAMLESH VERMA VERSUS MAYAWATI ORS. 2013 (8) TMI 912 - SUPREME COURT after discussing various decisions on the scope of review jurisdiction, the Hon ble Apex Court summarized the principles for exercise of the review jurisdiction, also laying down when the review would be maintainable and when not. With respect to the scope of review it has repeatedly been held that in the exercise of review jurisdiction, neither the Court can sit in appeal nor it is open for review petitioner to reagitate and reargue the questions which had already been addressed and decided by the writ Court. It is not permissible to allow the review petition to be re-heard and decide as an appeal in disguise. The present review petitions are an effort in the nature of second commencement of re-hearing of writ petitions which is impermissible. The judgments under review do not suffer from any apparent error of law - All the Review Petitions are dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Suppression of material facts in attestation forms.
2. Applicability of recruitment notification paragraphs 21 and 22.
3. Scope of review jurisdiction.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Suppression of Material Facts in Attestation Forms:
The primary issue was whether the suppression of involvement in criminal cases by the respondents in their attestation forms warranted disqualification from their posts. The learned Government Pleader argued that such suppression itself should incur disqualification, citing the case of Satish Chandra Yadav vs. Union of India and others (2023) 7 SCC 536, which held that suppression of information regarding criminal involvement leads to disqualification regardless of the nature of the offence or acquittal. However, the Coordinate Bench, while deciding the writ petitions, found that the criminal cases involved were trivial, occurred during the respondents' youth, and resulted in acquittals before the recruitment notification was issued. The Bench applied the principles from Avtar Singh vs. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471, Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India 2022 SCC OnLine SC 532, and Commissioner of Police vs. Sandeep Kumar (2011) 4 SCC 644, concluding that the orders of the Tribunal were legally sustainable and dismissed the writ petitions.

2. Applicability of Recruitment Notification Paragraphs 21 and 22:
The learned Government Pleader contended that paragraphs 21 and 22 of the recruitment notification, which mandate the verification of antecedents and disqualification for suppression of material facts, were not challenged and thus remained valid law. The review petitioners argued that the judgment under review could not be sustained without addressing these paragraphs. However, the court noted that this argument was not raised before the Coordinate Bench during the writ petitions and could not be introduced for the first time in a review petition. The court emphasized that the review jurisdiction does not allow for re-arguing the case on new grounds not previously raised.

3. Scope of Review Jurisdiction:
The court extensively discussed the scope of review jurisdiction, citing various precedents. It reiterated that review proceedings are confined to correcting apparent errors on the face of the record and are not meant to re-hear the case on merits. The court referenced multiple judgments, including Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (1980) 2 SCC 167, Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi (1997) 8 SCC 715, Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000) 6 SCC 224, and Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati (2013) 8 SCC 320, to underline that a review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to reargue or revisit the merits of the case. The court concluded that the Coordinate Bench's judgment was a possible view supported by law and did not suffer from any apparent error that would warrant a review.

Conclusion:
The court found no apparent error of law in the judgments under review and dismissed all the review petitions. The court held that the arguments presented by the learned Government Pleader did not fall within the permissible grounds for review and that the Coordinate Bench's decision was a legally sustainable view based on the facts and applicable legal principles.

Result:
All the review petitions were dismissed, and any pending miscellaneous petitions were closed in consequence.