Important point
Power of judicial review of its own order by High Court inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent mis-carriage of justice.

Headnote:Service Law—Review—Appellant was working since 23.9.1976 as lecturer and filed application for regularisation of his service—Respondents regularised service vide order dated 26.8.1999 w.e.f. 12.3.1993 i.e. from the date of issue of mark-sheet of M. Phil—Tribunal’s direction in an other application of appellant to regularise service of appellant w.e.f. 23.9.1976—Appeal was disposed of by High Court directing respondents to reconsider the case of appellant a fresh and to grant benefits to which appellant was entitled to—Appellant aggrieved by denial of award of senior scale and selection grades filed fresh O.A. in 2002—Tribunal allowed the application—High Court set aside the order of Tribunal—Review application was rejected—Appeal—Judgment impugned did not deal with and decide many important issues—High Court was not justified in ignoring material on record which on proper consideration could justify claim of appellant—Impugned judgment was a case of an error apparent on face of record and non-consideration of relevant documents—Impugned judgment was liable to be set aside and matter remitted to High Court.
Held : 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 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 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. 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 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. (Paras 14 and 15)

JUDGMENT

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.—Leave granted.

2. These two appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 22.12.2003 passed in W.P.C.T. No. 214 of 2003 by the High Court 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 Court of Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair in Review Petition bearing RVW No. 003 of 2004 by which the High Court dismissed the review petition filed by the appellant.

3. 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.”

4. 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 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.

5. The appellant filed O.A.No. 17/A&N/1999 challenging order No.582 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 decide 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 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 at liberty to approach this Tribunal again. There will be no order as to costs.”

6. The respondents regularised the service vide order dated 26.8.1999 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 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 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 the service of the petitioner with effect from the date of his initial appointment as lecturer i.e. 23.9.1976 by issuing ap

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 1296

Important pointPower of judicial review of its own order by High Court inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent mis-carriage of justice.

Important point
Power of judicial review of its own order by High Court inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent mis-carriage of justice.