Holding

The High Court's refusal to entertain the review was erroneous as it failed to consider material evidence, constituting an error apparent on the face of the record, and the order was set aside.

Summary

The appellant, a college lecturer, sought regularisation of his service and award of senior scale and selection grade under the UGC Career Advancement Scheme. The Central Administrative Tribunal had granted these benefits, but the Calcutta High Court set aside the tribunal's order and later rejected the appellant's review petition, holding that the appellant had not demonstrated any new or important documents. The appellant contended that he could not produce certain documents at the time of the original hearing due to bona‑fide reasons and that the High Court had ignored material evidence showing bias and statutory relaxations. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court's refusal to entertain the review constituted an error apparent on the face of the record. It held that the High Court erred by not considering the documents and by overlooking vital issues, thereby committing a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order refusing review and restored the tribunal proceedings for fresh consideration. The appeals were allowed without costs.

Issues considered

The High Court's jurisdiction to entertain a review of its own order when material evidence was omitted.
Whether the appellant's inability to produce certain documents at the time of the original hearing justified a review.
Whether the High Court's refusal to consider the appellant's evidence amounted to an error apparent on the face of the record.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 47

Subjects

review jurisdictionerror apparent on recordjudicial review of own ordersenior scaleselection gradeUGC Career Advancement Schemeservice regularisationmiscarriage of justice

Judgment

t ~
A RAJENDER SINGH
v.
LT. GOVERNOR, ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ISLANDS AND ORS.

OCTOBER 4, 2005

B [RUMA PAL AND OR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.]

Review jurisdiction-Power of the High Court-Scope of-Held: Courts
should not hesitate to review its own earlier order when there exists an error
on the face ofrecord and interest ofjustice so demands in appropriate cases-
c On facts, High Court erred in declining review by overlooking vital issues
~

raised and documents placed by the appellant-Particularly when the appellant
explained that at the time oforiginal hearing he was precludedfrom producing
the documents due to bona fide reasons and non-possession.

D Appellant was working as a College Lecturer. He filed application
before the Tribunal challenging denial of award of senior scale and
selection grade. The application was allowed, but High Court set aside the
order of Tribunal. Appellant filed review application against the order.
Several vital issues were raised and documents placed by the appellant,
but the High Court did not consider the same in its review jurisdiction.
E Though the appellant claimed that at the time of original hearing he was
precluded from producing the documents due to bona fide reasons and
non-possession, the High Court held that the documents placed were very
much available to the appellant and he failed to establish the situation
which prevented him from producing those documents at that time and
hence it cannot be said that there was discovery of a new and important
F
matter which despite exercise of due diligence on the part of the appellant
was not within his knowledge and possession and as such could not be
produced by him. Accordingly the review application was rejected. Hence
the present appeals.

G Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: I.I. Review jurisdiction is available in the present case since
the order of High Court declining review is a clear case of an error
apparent on the face of record and non-consideration of relevant
documents. The judgment docs not deal with and decide many important
H 1042 ' (
RAJENDER SINGH r. LT. GOVERNER, ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ISLANDS [LAKSHMANAN, J.J J043

issues as could be seen from the grounds of review and as raised in the A
grounds of special leave petition/appeal. The High Court is not justified
in ignoring the materials on record which on proper consideration may
justify the claim of the appellant. [1049-G-H; 1049-F-G)

1.2. The appellant has got a strong case in their favour and if his
claim is not countenanced, he will suffer immeasurable loss and injury. B
He has also explained to this Court as to why he could not place before
the Division Bench, which passed the original order, some of these
documents which were not in his possession at the time of hearing of the
case. (1049-E-G-H; 1050-A-B-C(

1.3. Law is well-settled that the power of judicial review of its own C
order by the High Court inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to
prevent mis-carriage of justice. The power extends to correct all errors
to prevent miscarriage of justice. The Courts should not hesitate to review
its own earlier order when there exists an error on the face of the record
and the interest of the justice so demands in appropriate cases. D
[1050-A-B-CI

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 6101-6102
of 2005.

From the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.2003 and 20.2.2004 of the E
Calcutta High Court at·Port Blair in W.P.C.T. No. 214/2003 and R.V.W. No.
3 of 2004.

Yashank Adhyaru and Mrs. V.D. Khanna for Appellant.

B. Dutta, Additional Solicitor General, Anuvrat Sharma and D.S. Mahra
for the Respondents. F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. Leave granted.

These two appeals are directed against the final judgment and order G
dated 22.12.2003 passed in W.P.C.T. No. 214 of2003 by the High Coult of
Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair by which the High Court allowed the
writ petition by dismissing the petition of the appellant herein before the
Central Administrative Tribunal in which the appellant herein succeeded and
judgment and order dated 20.2.2004 passed by the High Coult of Calcutta,
•
Circuit Bench at Port Blair in Review Petition bearing RVW No. 003 of2004 H
1044 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A by which the High Court dismissed the review petition 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
B Lecturer. He filed an application for regularis~tion 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
c 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
D
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/
E 1998 was disposed of at the admission stage with a direction upon the
respondents to pass reasoned and speaking order for award of selection grade.
Pursuant to the said judgment, the respondents passed Order No. 582 dated
19.2.1999.

The appellant filed O.A.No. l 7/A&N/1999 challenging order No. 582
F dated 19.2.1999 for award of senior scales and selection grades which was
disposed of on 14.2.2001 with a direction upon the Union Public Service
Commission to dec.ide the matter of regularisation latest by 31.3.2001. The
order reads as follows:

"Accordingly, we dispose of the OA with a direction that UPSC
G should decide the matter and communicate the decision to the applicant
latest by 31.3.2001 and while doing so the observation made in para
13,14,15 of the earlier decision in O.A 107/A&N/99 in which UPSC
was also a party should be kept in view. If the applicant is aggrieved
by the decision of the authorities he will be at liberty to approach this
Tribunal again. There will be no order as to costs."
H
RAJENDER SINGH 1·. LT. GOVERNER, ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ISLANDS [LAKSHMANAN,J.J J045
• The respondents regularised the service vide order dated 26.8.1999 A
regularizing the services w.e.f. 12.3.1993 i.e. from the date of issue of mark
sheet of M.Phil. Being aggrieved with the respondents for not upholding their
own order, the appellant withdrew O.A.No. 79/A&N/1998 and filed fresh
O.A.No.107/A&N/1999 dated 6.10.1999 for regularisation of his service w.e.f.
23.9.1976 and the said application was disposed of by the Tribunal by order
dated 7.7.2000 with the direction to the respondents to regularize service of B
the appellant w.e.f. 23.9.1976 awarding cost of Rs.25,000/-. The order reads
thus:

"We also take note of the fact that this petitioner has been
unnecessarily harassed by the respondent authorities compelling him C
to approach this Tribunal once again in the matter of regularisation
of his service without any lawful reason on the part of the respondent
authorities for which the petitioner deserves exemplary cost.

The OA is allowed. The impugned order dated 26th August, 1999
is hereby set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to regularise D
the service of the petitioner with effect from the date of his initial
appointment as lecturer i.e. 23.9.1976 by issuing appropriate order
and grant him all consequential service benefits within a period of six
weeks from the date of communication of this order. We also direct
the respondents to pay cost of Rs. 25,000 to the petitioner within the
aforesaid period." E
The respondents preferred an appeal against the order in O.A.No. I 07I
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 F
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
0.A. No. 90 of 2002 which the Tribunal disposed of by its order dated
3.9.2003 which reads as follows: G
"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 H
1046 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A 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) To consider and issue necessary order granting all other
consequential service benefits as a result of above seniority position
B and grant of senior scale to the applicant within a period of three
months after order has been passed and communicated in respect
of para (i) above and communicate this order to the applicant
within a period of two weeks thereafter, and,
(iii) To work out and pay/grant all the dues including arrears of pay
c and allowances etc. to the applicant within a period of six weeks
after taking action as per para (ii) above.

No order is passed as to costs."

The respondents preferred appeal against the order in 0.A.No.90 I A&NI
D 2002 which was disposed of by the High Court by its order dated 22.12.2003
setting aside the order of the Tribunal.

The appellant filed review application against the order in WPCT No.
214 of 2003 and the said review petition was rejected by another Division
Bench vide order dated 20.2.2004 in RVW No. 003 of 2004 in WPCT No.
E 214 of 2003.

We heard Mr. Yashank Adhyaru, learned senior counsel, appearing for
the appellant and Mr. B. Datta, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing
for the respondents.

F This Court issued notice on 20.07.2004 limited to the challenge to the
order passed on the review application by the High Court. Since the copy of
the review petition has not been filed along with the special leave petition, {
the appellant was directed by an order of this Court dated 31.08.2005 to file
the review application and to produce a copy of the review application.
Accordingly, counsel for the appellant has on 21.09.2005 filed certified copies
G of the records of the review petition and the same was placed before us for
our perusal. We have perused the certified copy of the review petition along
with all annexures. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the grounds
raised in the review petition and submitted that the impugned judgment does

H
not deal with and decide the important issue in the case that whether the
qualification laid down under para 13 and 14 of UGC Career Advancement
...
RAJENDER SINGH 1·. LT. GO VERNER, ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ISLANDS [LAKSHMANAN, l.l }04 7

' Scheme is mandatory or not for placing the appellant in senior scale and A
selection grade and if there is no finding about the qualification, the appellant
did not qualify for the said scheme. It was further submitted that the judgment
based on misrepresentation of a party on the main issue is open for review
in the light 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 B
relaxation to the aforesaid provisions by UGC up to 31.12.2004, the appellant
is eligible for selection grade. In addition, the ma/a jides 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 c
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 D
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 the appellant and as such could not be produced by him at the
time when the impugned order was made. It has been clearly stated in the
special leave petition as to how these documents were not in possession of E
the appellant at the time of hearing of the case. It was stated by the appellant
that despite due diligence, the appellant could not place before the Division
Bench, the Minutes of the Screening Committee held on 23.06.1987 and
04.03.1992 wherefrom it is crystal clear that senior scale and selection grade
' have been awarded to many lecturers by relaxing the conditions and only on
the basis of length of regular service in the College, on the basis of their F
teaching experience.· It was further pointed out that the Division Bench has
\ not considered the issue that conditions I 3(b) and l 4(b) are no longer a pre-
condition for placement in senior scale and for selection grade as the conditions
of participation in the refresher course were incorporated in relaxation of
rules following the guidelines dated 18.12.1989. This apart, the condition of G
refresher courses/summer institute had been relaxed up to 3 l. l 2.2004 by the
UGC vide its letter No. F2-16i2002 (PS) dated 17.10.2002. It was also
contended that the UGC's letter No. Fl-6/90 (PS) Cell dated 27.11.1990
wherein the Commission in consultation with the Ministry of Human Resources
Development (Department of Education), issued revised guidelines for
..... ~

counting of previous ad hoc service for the purpose of senior scale/selection H
1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A grade under Career Advancement Scheme for lecturer. According to learned
counsel for the appellant, the Division Bench of the High Court has overlooked
the fact that after regularisation from the initial date of appointment, the
appellant fulfilled the condition (a) and (c) under para 13 for senior scale and
the condition (b ). It was further submitted that the Division Bench has not
B taken into consideration the factthat the appellant has a good teaching record
and also fulfils other conditions (a), (c) and (e) as he possesses M. Phil.
degree which is a research degree, and he presented research papers in National
Seminar sponsored by UGC and engaged in teaching at Post-Graduate level
(M.Sc.) and that the condition (d) relaxation is incorporated in the scheme
and that the respondents themselves never allowed the appellant to participate
C in such courses. It was submitted that the High Court 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.
D 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 I
and awarded them seniority and all consequential benefits. It was argued that
E 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 relation to the case of the appellant and as
F such non-adjudication on the grounds of mala fide/fraud falls within the
scope of Order 47 CPC.

It was also pointed out that some of the documents were overlooked by ·
the Court. They are:

G (i) D.O. Letter No. F.2-16/2002(PS) dated 17-10-2002 and D.O. Letter
No. F1-6/90 (ASC/ER) dated 24- I 0-1994 of UGC regarding the
relaxation of refresher courses. Both these letters are annexed to
the Review Petition.
(ii) Relaxation incorporated in the Scheme dated 18-12-1989 of UGC
~.
H and the same is annexed to the Review Petition.
RAJENDER SINGH,.. LT. GOVERNER, ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ISLANDS [LAKSHMANAN. l.J J049

(iii) Letter dated I 9th January, I 995 wherein the Assistant Secretary A
(Edn.) being directed to inform to the Principal, JNRM regarding
the service benefits including the seniority to which the lecturers
are entitled to after the regularization of their services from the
initial date of their ad hoc appointment.
(iv) Documents reflecting bias and malafide intentions of the B
respondent authorities to victimize and harass the Petitioner.

The appellant has also filed a rejoinder affidavit with annexures Rl-R5.

Per contra, Mr. B. Dutta, learned Additional Solicitor General submitted
that the placement in senior scale/selection grade/reader is not by virtue of C
• length of service alone but certain mandatory conditions under the Career
Advacement Scheme and that the case of the appellant for placement in
senior scale/selection grade/reader was examined by the Screening Committee
and since he could not satisfy the mandatory requirement, his name was not
considered. Our attention was also drawn to certain averments made in the
counter affidavit filed in this Court on merits of the claim made by the D
appellant for reviewing the order of the Division Bench. He denied that the
Screening Committee was neither ma/a fide nor biased and it adhered to
Career Advancement Scheme as laid down by UGC and the Ministry of
Human Resources Development and that the appellant did not fulfil the
mandatory and statutory conditions for the award of senior scale. It was E
submitted that the scope of application for review is more restricted than that
of an appeal and, therefore, the review application has no merits.

We are unable to countenance the argument advanced by learned
Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents. A careful perusal
of the impugned judgment does not deal with and decide many important F
issues 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 G
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 H
1050 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A 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.

B The power, in our opinion, extends to correct all errors to prevent
miscarriage of justice. The courts should not hesitate to review its own earlier
order when there exists an error on the face of the record and the interest of
the justice so demands in appropriate cases. The grievance of the appellant
is that though several vital issues were raised and documents placed, the
C High Court has not considered the same in its review jurisdiction. In our
opinion, the High Court's order in the revision petition is not correct which
really necessitates our interference.

We, therefore, set aside the order passed by the High Court in RVW
No. 003 of2004 in WPCT No. 214 of2003 dated 20.02.2004 and allow the
D appeal from the order refusing review. In view of our allowing the appeal
filed against the order in RVW No. 003 of 2004 dated 20.02.2004, we set
aside the original order dated 22.12.2003 in WPCT No. 214 of 2003. The
WPCT is restored to file. We dispose of these two appeals with a request to
the High Court for fresh consideration of the WPCT No. 214 of 2003 on
merits as expeditiously as possible. Both parties are at liberty to place before
E the High Court the special leave petition grounds with annexures, the counter
-
filed by the respondent herein with annexures and the rejoinder filed by the
appellant with annexures as additional documents in WPCT NO. 214 of
2003.

F We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits
of the rival claim. The appeals shall stand allowed. No costs.

B.B.B. Appeal Allowed.