1. Candidature for assistant motor vehicles inspector cancelled over qualification disputes — subsequent review of tribunal order dismissing appointment claim. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2001 Supreme(SC) 1218
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Doraiswamy Raju : S.R.Babu
Subhash
Versus
State Of Maharashtra
Case No. : 4411 of 1997
Date of Decision : 9/4/01
Important Points
The scope of review under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, is limited to correcting plain and apparent errors, similar to the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, and does not allow for a re-examination of the case as an original application.
Subject
Administrative Law - Tribunal Jurisdiction
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 22(3)(f) - Code of Civil Procedure - Scope of review - The scope of review under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, is limited and is vested in a manner similar to a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure - A review is permissible only if the error pointed out is plain and apparent - The tribunal cannot proceed to re-examine the matter as if it were an original application. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
A candidate for the post of assistant motor vehicles inspector had his candidature cancelled on grounds of lacking specific educational qualifications, licenses, and experience. After the highest court found the candidate satisfied the requisite qualifications and the tribunal directed the authorities to consider the appointment, the tribunal subsequently reviewed its own order and dismissed the application following the filing of a contempt petition.
Findings of Court:
The tribunal's order on review was unjustified because it exceeded the limited scope of review by re-examining the merits of the case as if it were an original application, rather than restricting its inquiry to plain and apparent errors.
Issues: Whether the tribunal was justified in reviewing and setting aside its own order by re-examining the matter as an original application under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Ratio Decidendi: The power of review under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, is restricted to the correction of errors that are plain and apparent, mirroring the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure; it does not authorize a de novo examination of the original application.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Facts of the case:
A candidate for the post of assistant motor vehicles inspector had his candidature cancelled on grounds of lacking specific educational qualifications, licenses, and experience. After the highest court found the candidate satisfied the requisite qualifications and the tribunal directed the authorities to consider the appointment, the tribunal subsequently reviewed its own order and dismissed the application following the filing of a contempt petition.
Findings of Court:
The tribunal's order on review was unjustified because it exceeded the limited scope of review by re-examining the merits of the case as if it were an original application, rather than restricting its inquiry to plain and apparent errors.
Issues: Whether the tribunal was justified in reviewing and setting aside its own order by re-examining the matter as an original application under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Ratio Decidendi: The power of review under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, is restricted to the correction of errors that are plain and apparent, mirroring the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure; it does not authorize a de novo examination of the original application.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the tribunal could review and set aside its own order directing appointment after the court had already found the candidate qualified. (Para 2 )
3. The tribunal exceeded its limited review jurisdiction by re-examining the case as an original application instead of identifying plain and apparent errors. (Para 3 )
4. Review jurisdiction under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is limited to correcting plain and apparent errors and does not permit re-hearing. (Para 3 )
5. Review order set aside — original order directing consideration for appointment restored — appeal allowed with costs. (Para 4 , 5 )
6. What is the scope of the tribunal's power of review under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985?
The scope of review is limited, mirroring the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure. The tribunal may only interfere if the error pointed out is plain and apparent. (Para 3 )
7. Can a tribunal re-examine a matter as an original application during a review proceeding?
No. The tribunal cannot re-examine the matter as if it were an original application, as this exceeds the limited scope of review jurisdiction. (Para 3 )
JUDGMENT
S.RAJENDRA BABU, J.
(1) THIS is an unfortunate case wherein the appellant has been put to the necessity of approaching this Court for a second time. The appellant had applied for the post of assistant motor vehicles inspector. The appellant was allowed to take necessary test before the public service commission. However, his candidature was cancelled on three grounds:
I) that he did not possess diploma in automobile engineering / mechanical engineering;
II) that he did not possess heavy vehicles licence; and
III) that he did not have the requisite experience subsequent to the acquisition of necessary qualification from a recognised and reputed workshop.
(2) THIS Court, on earlier occasion having examined the matter stated that on these three aspects, the appellant satisfies the qualification required by the rules in an appeal arising out of an order made by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bombay bench (for short the tribunal) on the previous occasion, by which it had refused to interfere with the action taken by the public service commission, cancelling the candidature of the appellant was set aside, with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the appellant for appointment if he otherwise satisfies the requisite qualifications including the marks obtained in the written test and the interview already held. On examination of this matter, the authorities not having given an appointment to the appellant, he had approached the tribunal once over again. That application was considered and the tribunal examined whether qualification should be reckoned as possessed on the last date of filing of the application or on the date of the interview and found two sets of precedents in decisions of this Court. However, on the basis that even if on the date of interview the candidate possesses qualification, he could be appointed. Matter was disposed of with a direction to clear his case and to consider him for appointment to the post of assistant motor vehicles inspector. Thereafter, when the order made by the tribunal was not complied with, an application in contempt had been filed. The tribunal reviewed its earlier order and set aside its earlier order made on the original application and dismissed the application filed by the appellant. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
(3) THE scope for consideration before the tribunal was very limited. Inasmuch as this Court had found that the appellant did possess the necessary qualification as per the rules and the tribunal having found he was entitled for appointment in original application no. 94/1995, there is no justification for the tribunal to have reviewed the matter once over again, particularly, when the scope of review is very much limited under section 22 (3) (f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 as is vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure. The tribunal could have interfered in the matter if the error pointed out, is plain and apparent. But the tribunal proceeded to re-examine the matter as if it is an original application before it. This is not the scope of review.
(4) IN that view of the matter, we think the order on review made by the tribunal needs to be set aside. It is ordered accordingly. The order dated 27.3.1995 made by the tribunal on the original application no. 94/1995 shall stand restored. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
(5) HOWEVER, in the circumstances of the case, we think, it is appropriate to award the cost to the appellant which is quantified at Rs. 10.000.00
