9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 538X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed by the appellant. The short facts, which are relevant for the disposal of these two appeals, are as follows: The appellant has been working continuously since 23.09.1976 as a Lecturer. He filed an application for regularisation of his service. The Tribunal disposed of the application with a direction to grant study leave within a period of three years vide order dated 17.6.1987. The operative part of the order reads as follows: Hence, it is ordered that the applicant be given an opportunity to acquire M.Phil degree from a recognised university within a period of three years and for that purpose study leave of sufficient length should be given to the applicant. If the applicant fails to acquire the M.Phil degree even after being given this opportunity, the Government will be at liberty to terminate his services. If the applicant is able to acquire the M.Phil degree he should be regularised immediately after he gets the M.Phil degree. The appellant being aggrieved due to the inaction of the respondents, filed O.A. No.79 and 80/A N/1998 for regularisation of his service and award of Senior Scale and selection grades on 24.11.1998. O.A.No. 80/A N/1998 was disposed of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00/- to the petitioner within the aforesaid period. The respondents preferred an appeal against the order in O.A.No. 107/A N/1999 and the appeal was disposed of by the High Court vide order dated 21.8.2000 directing the respondents to reconsider the case of the appellant afresh and to grant benefits to the appellant to which the appellant is entitled to in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The High Court also upheld the cost and in view of the conduct of the respondents gave liberty to the appellant to file suit for damages. The appellant being aggrieved due to the denial of the award of senior scale and selection grades filed fresh O.A. No. 90 of 2002 which the Tribunal disposed of by its order dated 3.9.2003 which reads as follows: In view of the above, we allow this application with following directions to the respondent authorities:- (i) To consider and issue necessary order giving seniority to the applicant w.e.f. 23-9-1976 and granting senior scale to the applicant, w.e.f. 1-1-1986 within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order and communicate the same to the applicant within a period of two weeks thereafter. (ii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ight of the law laid down by this Court in a number of decisions. Learned counsel further submitted that in view of relaxation incorporated in the scheme with regard to the provision 11 (b) and (d) and subsequent relaxation to the aforesaid provisions by UGC up to 31.12.2004, the appellant is eligible for selection grade. In addition, the mala fides coupled with obvious factor of bias was also raised before the High Court. It was clearly overlooked by the High Court and, therefore, learned counsel submitted that it is a good ground for review particularly when the appellant was precluded from producing the documents due to bona fide reasons and non-possession. The High Court held that though the documents were very much available to the appellant, the appellant has not been able to satisfy the Court and failed to establish the situation which prevented him from not producing those documents before the Division Bench when the matter was taken up for consideration and in such view of the fact it cannot be said that there has been discovery of new and important matter which despite exercise of due diligence on the part of the appellant was not within the knowledge and possession of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not noticed the important fact that the Screening Committee having interviewed the appellant on 28.01.2002 for award of senior scale again called him for personal interview after two months for grant of selection grade in its meeting held on 05.03.2002. It was well-established fact that unless a lecturer is granted senior scale in the first instance, he cannot be considered at all for the grant of selection grade. Our attention was also drawn to the fact that the Division Bench has not considered the Administration's letter dated 10.01.1995 wherein other lecturers' services were regularised from the initial date on their ad hoc appointment after clearance from the UPSC on the directions of the Tribunal and awarded them seniority and all consequential benefits. It was argued that the High Court has committed an error of fact by overlooking the documents relied on by the appellant particularly the documents showing bias on the part of the respondents/members of the Screening Committee and the discrimination and harassment to which the appellant has been subjected since 27.03.2000 and the incorrect submission made by their respondents in their affidavits which bear direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es as could be seen from the grounds of review and as raised in the grounds of special leave petition/appeal. The High Court, in our opinion, is not justified in ignoring the materials on record which on proper consideration may justify the claim of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has also explained to this Court as to why the appellant could not place before the Division Bench some of these documents which were not in possession of the appellant at the time of hearing of the case. The High Court, in our opinion, is not correct in overlooking the documents relied on by the appellant and the respondents. In our opinion, review jurisdiction is available in the present case since the impugned judgment is a clear case of an error apparent on the face of the record and non- consideration of relevant documents. The appellant, in our opinion, has got a strong case in their favour and if the claim of the appellant in this appeal is not countenanced, the appellant will suffer immeasurable loss and injury. Law is well-settled that the power of judicial review of its own order by the High Court inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent mis-carriage of justice. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
