Patna High Court
Yugal Kishor Prasad GuptaversusB.N. Mandal University
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The review application was dismissed as it did not disclose any error on the face of the record nor any new, previously unavailable evidence, and rehearing on merits is impermissible.
Summary
The petitioner, Yugal Kishor Prasad Gupta, sought a review of the Patna High Court's order dated 1 March 2024 that dismissed his civil writ petition seeking regularisation of his service as an accountant at Purnea College. He claimed that he could not earlier produce a letter dated 12 October 2018 authorising advance salary, which he argued demonstrated that he was working within a sanctioned post and warranted regularisation. The court examined the grounds for review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and found that the petitioner offered no new material that was not within his knowledge despite due diligence, nor any apparent error in the original judgment. Citing precedents such as Inderchand Jain v. Motilal and several Supreme Court decisions, the court held that a review application cannot be used to rehear the merits of the case. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a review of the order dismissing his writ petition on the basis of new evidence.
- Whether the documents now produced constitute a ground for review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC.
- Whether the original appointment of the petitioner complied with constitutional due process and competent authority requirements.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure — s. Order 47 Rule 1
Subjects
- review of judgment
- civil writ jurisdiction
- regularisation of service
- appointment without due process
- CPC Order 47
- judicial review
- employment law
- university administration
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVIEW No.140 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11371 of 2015
======================================================
Yugal Kishor Prasad Gupta Son of Ram Deni Prasad, Resident of Court no 3,
Purnea, Police Station- Purnea, District-Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. B.N. Mandal University Laloo Nagar Madhepura through its Registrar.
2. The Vice-Chancellor, B.N. Mandal University, Laloo Nagar Madhepura.
3. The Registrar, B.N. Mandal University, Laloo Nagar Madhepura.
4. The Principal, Purnea College, Purnea.
5. Purnea University, Purnea through its Registrar.
6. The Vice-Chancellor, Purnea University, Purnea.
7. The Registrar, Purnea University, Purnea.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Radha Mohan Singh, Advocate
For the Purnea University : Mr. Maurya Vijay Chandra, Advocate
Mr. Abhimanu Vast, Advocate
Mr. Govind Govinda, Advocate
Ms. Preety Ranjan, Advocate
For the B.N. Mandal University : Mr. Ashhar Mustafa, Advocate
For the Respondent no.4 : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 16-06-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for
review of the judgment dated 1.3.2024 whereby this Court was
Patna High Court C. REV. No.140 of 2024 dt.16-06-2026
2/9
pleased to dismiss C.W.J.C. no.11371 of 2015 (Yugal Kishore
Prasad Gupta vs. B.N. Mandal University and Ors.).
3. The case of the petitioner in the writ application
was that having been appointed by the Principal of the Purnea
College, Purnea on 23.4.1986 for doing accounting work
without any remuneration, the petitioner started working.
Subsequently payment of a daily wage employee was allowed to
him on 20.12.1988.
4. Inspite of the petitioner working since 24.4.1986
and the Principal of the College writing a letter to the Registrar
of the University on 21.8.1998 to regularize his service, his
service was not regularized. This led to the petitioner filing
C.W.J.C. no.8096 of 2013 which was disposed off on 5.8.2014
giving liberty to the petitioner to file a representation which was
to be considered by the Vice Chancellor. The representation
filed by the petitioner having been rejected on 6.1.2015 led to
the petitioner filing C.W.J.C. no.11371 of 2015.
5. Taking into consideration the material on record,
by order dated 1.3.2024, C.W.J.C. no.11371 of 2015 was
dismissed.
6. The grounds mentioned in the order under review
dated 1.3.2024 which lead to the dismissal of the writ
Patna High Court C. REV. No.140 of 2024 dt.16-06-2026
3/9
application are as follows:
(i) The petitioner was engaged by the Principal on
23.4.1986 to work in the accounts section without any wages.
(ii) The appointment of the petitioner was not by a
competent authority nor after following the due process as
required under the Constitution.
(iii) The service of the petitioner not having been
regularized led to the petitioner filing C.W.J.C. no.4465 of 2004
which was dismissed vide order dated 1.2.2006.
(iv) The appeal preferred by the petitioner against
the order dated 1.2.2006 vide LPA no.188 of 2006 was also
dismissed vide order dated 21.2.2007.
7. The representation of the petitioner was
considered by the University and rejected on the grounds that
neither the petitioner was engaged nor appointed as a daily wage
earner, the appointment was not by the competent authority nor
was he appointed following the due process.
8. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner that the petitioner on the earlier occasion (while
hearing of C.W.J.C. no.11371 of 2015) could not place on
record important documents which had bearing on the case.
Reference is made to a letter dated 12.10.2018 of the Registrar
Patna High Court C. REV. No.140 of 2024 dt.16-06-2026
4/9
issued with the authorization of the Vice Chancellor allowing
advance salary to the employees working for the last 5 years and
onwards. Learned counsel submit that this authorization would
only lead to the conclusion that the petitioner was working
within the sanctioned post. It is thus submitted that taking into
consideration the additional facts/documents, the review
application be allowed, the order be reviewed and the prayer
made in the writ application be granted.
9. The application is opposed by learned counsel
appearing for the respondents. It is submitted that the averment
made in the application do not make out a case for review of the
judgment as there is no error on the face of the record. Referring
to the judgment in the case of Inderchand Jain vs. Motilal;
(2009) 14 SCC 663, it is submitted that the review Court does
not sit in appeal over its own order and rehearing of the matter
is impermissible in law. It is thus submitted that the petitioner
not having made out any case for review of the judgment, the
instant application be dismissed.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record.
11. The writ application (C.W.J.C. no.11371 of
2015) review of which is sought was dismissed by order dated
Patna High Court C. REV. No.140 of 2024 dt.16-06-2026
5/9
1.3.2024. Relevant portion of the order dated 1.3.2024 is
reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
“8. Having heard learned
counsel for the parties and having perused
the material on record, it transpires that the
petitioner was engaged by the Principal on
23.4.1986 to work in the Accounts section,
but without any wages. Subsequently as per
the petitioner’s case, inspite of the Principal
writing letter to the Vice-Chancellor of the
University with respect to the petitioner and
others, no steps was taken by the
respondent- University which led to the
petitioner’s filing CWJC no.4465 of 2004
which was dismissed vide order dated
1.2.2006 and even the appeal preferred from
the same being LPA no.188 of 2006 was
dismissed vide order dated 21.2.2007.
9. Inspite of the prayer for
regularisation made in the earlier case
having been dismissed by this Court and
even the appeal preferred there from not
having been entertained, the petitioner once
again preferred CWJC no.8096 of 2013
which was disposed of vide order dated
5.8.2014 giving liberty to the petitioner to
file a fresh representation before the Vice-
Chancellor of the University. A perusal of
the said order would show that the Court
Patna High Court C. REV. No.140 of 2024 dt.16-06-2026
6/9
took note of the submission made by learned
counsel for the petitioner that subsequent to
the earlier orders passed in the petitioner’s
writ petition and LPA, the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of
Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3) reported in
2006 (2) PLJR 363 (SC) had come and as
such the direction that the Vice-Chancellor
was to consider all the materials produced
by the petitioner in accordance with law.
10. The University considered the
case of the petitioner and rejected the
representation by the order impugned dated
6.1.2015. The Registrar of the University
observed that the petitioner was neither
engaged nor appointed as a daily wage
earner, the appointment was not by the
competent authority nor after following the
due process as required under the
Constitution. The petitioner having been
engaged illegally and the engagement being
of contractual/outsourcing basis, the
petitioner could not be considered for
regularisation even as per the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Confronted with
the reasons given by the Registrar of the
University in the
order impugned, though learned counsel for
the petitioner tried to impress upon the
Court from the communications/letters
Patna High Court C. REV. No.140 of 2024 dt.16-06-2026
7/9
between the authorities of the University
brought on record that the petitioner was
subsequently engaged as a daily wager,
however the reasonings given in the order
impugned with respect to the petitioner not
having been appointed by the competent
authority nor after following the due process
could not be answered.
11. In view of the facts and
circumstances stated hereinabove, the Court
finds no merit in the instant application and
the same is dismissed.”
12. Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure
provides for review of judgment on the ground of discovery of
new important matter or evidence which even after exercise of
due diligence was not within the knowledge of the petitioner, on
account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the
record or for any other sufficient reason.
13. So far as the instant application is concerned,
the petitioner only submits that he could not place on record
important documents which had otherwise bearing in the present
case. The petitioner does not state that these documents/letters
could not be produced by him even after exercise of due
diligence nor is he able to show any error apparent on the face
of the records of the judgment. Thus in the opinion of the Court
Patna High Court C. REV. No.140 of 2024 dt.16-06-2026
8/9
the petitioner in the garb of a review application is seeking a
rehearing of the main case on merit. This is clearly
impermissible.
14. So far as the law laid down on the scope of
review application is concerned, the Court is not going into the
details thereof but only mentions that reference may be made to
the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde vs. Millikarjun
Bhavanappa Tirumale; AIR 1960 SC 137, Col. Avtar Singh
Sekhon vs. Union of India; 1980 Supp SCC 562, Parsion Devi
vs. Sumitri Devi; (1997) 8 SCC 715, Lily Thomas vs. Union of
India; (2000) 6 SCC 224 and State of Telangana and Ors. vs.
Mohd. Abdul Qasim; (2024) 6 SCC 461.
15. In view of the facts and circumstances of the
case, the Court is of the opinion that there is no such material in
possession of the petitioner, non-consideration of which would
lead to miscarriage of justice, the petitioner has not been able to
establish that there was an error apparent on the face of the
record or that any of the documents which the petitioner seeks
to bring to the attention of the Court by filing the instant
application was not within his knowledge and could not be
produced by him inspite of exercise of due diligence.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.140 of 2024 dt.16-06-2026
9/9
16. In view of the facts and circumstances of the
case, the Court finds no merit in the instant application and the
review application is dismissed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
sauravkrsinha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 3.4.2026
Uploading Date 17.6.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.