SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Cal) 1044

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA, (CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI)
BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.

Abhiskek Rai – Petitioner
Versus
Gorkhaland Territorial Administrative Council & Ors. – Respondents
RVW/4/2023 In WPA/315/2023
Decided On : 14-08-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. A.K Banerjee, Mr. Ekramul Bari.
For the Respondents: Mr. Bikramaditya Ghosh, Ms. Supriya Singh, Mr. Saibal Kumar Acharyya, Mr. Debjit Kundu.

The power of review under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is limited to cases where there is a grave or apparent error in the order sought to be reviewed or where new and important evidence is presented.

Headnote:

REVIEW PETITION - APPOINTMENT OF TEACHER - GTA ADMINISTRATION - SECTION 114 AND ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - SUMMARY

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Abhishek Rai, was appointed as an assistant teacher in Dr. Radhakrishnan Higher Secondary School on 18th June, 2015. He filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of his representation for regularization of his appointment. The court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation along with the copy of an order passed in a similar case. The petitioner filed a review petition contending that the court should have allowed permanent approval in the post.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the review petition was not maintainable as it did not fall within the grounds specified in Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court further held that the order sought to be reviewed did not contain any grave or apparent error and that the petitioner had not presented any new and important evidence.

Issues: 1. Whether the review petition was maintainable? 2. Whether the order sought to be reviewed contained any grave or apparent error? 3. Whether the petitioner had presented any new and important evidence?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important evidence or where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found. 2. The order sought to be reviewed did not contain any grave or apparent error. 3. The petitioner had not presented any new and important evidence.

Final Decision: The review petition was dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.) : –

1. This instant review petition is filed by one Abhishek Rai, who being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 07,02.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.A. No.315 of 2023, has prayed for permanent approval to the post of a teacher in Dr. Radhakrishnan Higher Secondary School.

2. The petitioner was appointed as an assistant teacher on 18th June, 2015 in Dr. Radhakrishnan Higher Secondary School by the school authority against the permanently sanctioned vacant post. In 2009 in an administrative circular, the School Education Department restrained the District Inspector of School (S.E.), Darjeeling from approval of appointment to any teaching staff engaged on a contractual basis. The petitioner filed WPA 6798 of 2020 which was disposed of on 15.09.2020 with a direction upon the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner within a period of six months and the D.I. of Schools (S.E.) passed an order dated 27th January, 2021 rejecting the representation of the petitioner holding, inter alia, that he is not the competent authority to grant orders for such regularization as prayed for by the petitioner.

3. Through a second round of litigation vide WPA 315 of 2023, the petitioner had sought for his absorption in the vacant post in the said school in respect of Assistant teacher. He argued that on the strength of an order dated 29th December, 2014 passed in WP 34439 (W) of 2014 similarly placed teachers posted in different schools under the administration of GTA were absorbed against the vacant post. This court passed the following order in WPA 315 of 2023 on 07.02.2023:

    “The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 18thJune, 2015 in Dr. Radhakrishnan Higher Secondary School. The above named writ petitioner filed WPA 6798 of 2020which was disposed of on 15.09.2020 with a direction upon the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner within a period of six months and the D.I. of Schools (S.E.) was directed to pass a reasoned order thereafter. The D.I. of Schools (S.E.) passed an order dated 27th January, 2021 rejecting the representation of the petitioner holding, inter alia, that he is not the competent authority to grant orders for such regularization as prayed for by the petitioner.

This is the second round of litigation where the petitioner has sought for his absorption in the vacant post in the said school in respect of Assistant Teacher. On the strength of an order dated 29th December, 2014 passed in WP 34439 (W) of 2014 similarly placed teachers posted in different schools under the administration of GTA were absorbed against the vacant posts. The present petitioners are praying for the similar relief in the instant writ petition stating, inter alia, that the order of the aforesaid writ petition was not placed before the Principal Secretary, GTA along with his representation which was rejected on 23rd August, 2021.

In view of such circumstances, the instant writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation along with the copy of the order passed in WP 34439 (W) of 2014 before the Secretary, GTA who will consider the representation afresh and pass a reasoned order within three weeks from the date of receipt of such representation after giving an opportunity to the petitioners or his authorized representative of hearing.”

4. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this review petition praying for permanent approval in the post and contending that the Principal Secretary, Gorkha Territorial Administration rejected the prayer of the petitioner as such the order dated 07.02.2023 with the direction for filing fresh representation before the same authority is an empty formality which is liable to be reviewed for the ends of justice. Next, the petitioner contends that the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to pass the Judgement and Order on 07.02.2023 on the same day of WPA No. 299 of 2023 (Siddanth Rai &Ors.- V.S.- The S

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top