Back
JYOTI SINGH
Dhananjay Kumar Mishra – Appellant
Versus
Airports Authority of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J.
REVIEW PET. 154/2020 in W.P.(C) 9687/2019
REVIEW PET. 155/2020 in W.P.(C) 10697/2019
REVIEW PET. 152/2020 in W.P.(C) 9716/2019
1. This judgment will dispose of three review petitions filed by Airport Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as the `AAI') under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking review/recall of the judgment dated 26.02.2020, whereby three writ petitions being W.P.(C) 9687/2019, W.P.(C) 9716/2019 and W.P.(C) 10697/2019 have been decided. Original writ Petitioners are Respondents in the review petitions and are being referred to as Petitioners hereinafter for the sake of convenience.
2. Before embarking on the journey to decide whether the judgement dated 26.02.2020 entails a review on merits, it is important to delineate the scope and ambit of interference by the Court while deciding a review petition.
3. In S. Nagaraj and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another, 1993 Supp (4) SCC 595, the Supreme Court held that review literally and even judicially means re-examination or re-consideration and basic philosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance of human fallibility, yet in the realm of law, Courts and even Statu
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a review is not an appeal and nor can it be used as a proceeding to re-argue the matter as original proceedings. The court emphasized that the....
The court upheld that eligibility criteria for employment must be strictly adhered to, and ambiguity in advertisements should favor candidates only when clearly warranted.
Review petitions can only correct apparent errors on record; they cannot rehash previously settled arguments. Employees are entitled to executive pay scales when performing duties of a higher post, d....
Review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent on the record and does not allow for re-examination of the merits of a case.
The power of review is limited to correcting patent errors, not re-evaluating merits; mere recommendations do not confer enforceable rights.
The employer has the final authority to determine eligibility criteria for employment, and experience from a non-IPP entity cannot be considered valid for the purpose of recruitment.
Eligibility criteria for recruitment positions must be strictly adhered to, and employment status significantly impacts qualification assessment under employer-defined guidelines.
Review jurisdiction is strictly limited to apparent errors in the record or new evidence; acceptance of a reduced pay scale upon appointment restricts subsequent claims for higher pay.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
