CHANDHASHEKHAR, J.

( 1 ) DOES overlooking a binding decision, constitute a ground for reviewing a judgment or order of a Court? That is the question that arises for decision in this review petition.

( 2 ) THIS is a petition for review of our order in WP. No. 3789 of 1970 the petitioner herein is the Selection Committee for Admission to Government medical Colleges (hereinafter referred to as the Selection Committee) which was the respondent in the writ petition. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will hereinafter be referred to with reference to their respective positions in the writ petition.

( 3 ) THE question that arose for decision in the writ petition, was whether the petitioner who belongs to Meda community and was a resident of kolar District, could be regarded as belonging to Scheduled Tribes for whom certain seats are reserved for admission to Government Medical colleges in Mysore State. In the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, issued by the President under Art. 342 of the Constitution of India, and amended by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Order, 1956, Meda community in Coorg District has been specified as a Scheduled Tribe. But in the rest of the new State of Mysore that community has not been specified as a scheduled tribe.

( 4 ) AT the hearing of the writ petition, thr learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in Suleman v. Narasappa, 1959 Mys. L. J. 775. Following that decision, we held that if a community or a tribe is a Scheduled tribe anywhere in the State it must be regarded as a Scheduled tribe in the entire State. In that view, we held that the petitioner should be regarded as belonging to Scheduled Tribes though he was a resident of Kolar District and we directed the Selection Committee to consider his application for admission to Medical Colleges having regard to the reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes.

( 5 ) THE ground on which the Selection Committee has sought for a review of our order in the writ petition, is that we overlooked the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhaiyalal v. Herri Krishna Singh, AIR. 1965 SC. 1557. which must be held to have overruled the decision of this Court in Suleman v. Narasappo (1 ). Undoubtedly, the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court bears directly on the point that arose for decision in the writ petition. At the hearing of the writ petition, neither the petitioner's Counsel nor the learned Government Pleader who appeared for the Selection Committee brought to our notice the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court (Bhaiyalal v. Hari Krishna Singh, (2) ). The learned Government Advocate who appeared for the Selection committee in this review petition, contended that in deciding a case if the Court overlooks a binding decision bearing on a material question, then that constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record and calls for a review of its judgment or order.

( 6 ) ON the other hand, Mr. R. J. Babu, learned Counsel for the respondent in this review petition, contended that even if the Court overlooks a binding decision, that constitutes neither an error apparent on the face of the record nor a sufficient cause for reviewing its judgment or order. On the question whether overlooking a binding decision, is a ground for review, there is no reported decision of the Supreme Court or of this Court: nor has any unreported decision of either of these Courts, been brought to our notice. The views of other High Courts on this question, are divergent. Before adverting to such conflicting decisions of High Courts, it may be stated that it is well-settled that that a decision is erroneous in law, is no ground for review and that it is only where such decision can be charactersised as vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record, it can be reviewed.

( 7 ) WE shall now consider the decisions cited by the learned Government Advocate. In Murari Rao v. Balavant Dixit, AIR 1924 Ma

Click Here to Read the rest of this document