Review jurisdiction is limited to glaring omissions or patent mistakes; unaided minority institutions must comply with statutory conditions regarding pay scales.

JUDGMENT :

Anil L. Panasre, J.

1. Having heard at length, we deem it appropriate to first reiterate the scope of the review jurisdiction, which we have culled down from the judgments submitted by both the sides:

(i) Review of the judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in, resulting into miscarriage of justice.

(ii) An error that is not self evident and the one that has to be detected by the process of reasoning cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of record.

(iii) The error apparent on the face of the proceeding is an error which is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law. Such error is an error which is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision.

(iv) The error must be an error of inadvertence.

(v) It is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be ‘reheard and corrected’.

(vi) Review is not maintainable unless the material error manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.

(vii) The term, ‘miscarriage or error apparent’, by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detail examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position.

(viii) It is not open to the Court to re-appreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion even if that is possible.

(ix) A review is, by no means, an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error.

(x) The words, ‘any other sufficient reason’ appearing in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 must mean ‘a reason sufficient of grounds at least analogous to those provisions specified in the rule’.

(xi) A decree or the order passed under misapprehension of true set of circumstances is sufficient ground to exercise power of review.

(xii) Ignorance of a binding precedent and taking a totally contrary view can be said to be an error apparent on the face of record.

(xiii) If the relevant provision of law was not pointed out and consequently not considered, the same can be a ground for review.

(xiv) The contention urged but not considered can be said to be an error apparent on the face of record.

2. Keeping in mind the above legal position, the grounds raised by the applicants will have to be considered.

3. Applicant No.2 - College of Engineering is run by the applicant No.1 – Society. The applicants shall be hereinafter referred to as the, ‘Management’. The non applicant Nos. 1 to 3 – original petitioners, are/were working as Assistant Professors in the applicant No.2 – College. They will be hereinafter referred to as ‘Assistant Professors’. Non applicant Nos.3 to 8 were other respondents and include State of Maharashtra, Directorate of Technical Education, All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE), Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University (University) and Fees Regulatory Authority.

4. The Assistant Professors filed a petition seeking benefit of recommendations of the VI and VII Pay Commission, being Writ Petition No.2022/2020. This Court (Coram: Rohit B. Deo and Y.G. Khobragade, JJ.) vide impugned judgment, allowed the petition and declared that the Assistant Professors are entitled to the benefits of Pay Scales recommended by the VI and VII Pay Commission. Accordingly, the Management was directed to pay arrears of salary at 100% for 3 years preceding the date of filing of petition viz. from 20.06.2017 to 20.10.2020 and 50% from the date of approval, until 19.06.2017.

5. According to the Management, the judgment suffers from error apparent on the face of record and accordingly, the present review is filed. According to Mr. M.G. Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, various points that were argued by the Management, though noted, were not considered by the Court and thus occasioned error apparent on the face of record.

6. This conten