Review applications are maintainable only under strict circumstances, such as discovery of new facts or obvious errors, with the burden on petitioners to demonstrate actual prejudice caused by changes in recruitment rules.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.

Heard Shri D. Mahanta, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Shri K. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department as well as Shri A. Borua, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 to 5.

2. By the present application, the applicant, who was the petitioner in the WP(C)/5578/2020 has prayed for review of the order dated 09.03.2022 by which the said writ petition, along with certain other writ petitions were dismissed.

3. Before going to the grounds set forth in the application for review, it would be apposite to remind ourselves the parameters and contours in which an application for review may be held to be maintainable.

4. The ambit and powers which a review Court can exercise have been well defined. It is needless to reiterate that it is only on limited grounds where a review Court could exercise its powers which are-

a. Discovery of new and important facts which were not within the knowledge of the party even by exercise of due diligence

b. Detecting an error apparent on the face of the record,

c. Any other sufficient reasons.

5. Though the third ground is subjective in nature, the requirement of sufficiency has to be construed in a strict manner as otherwise the object to bring litigations to a finality would be defeated.

6. It is no longer res integra that a Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 exercises plenary jurisdiction in which the power of review is inbuilt. In this regard, one may gainfully refer to the case of MM Thomas Vs. State of Kerala and Ors. reported in (2000) 1 SCC 666 wherein the following observations were made:

“14. The High Court as a court of record, as envisaged in Article 215 of the Constitution, must have inherent powers to correct the records. A court of record envelops all such powers whose acts and proceedings are to be enrolled in a perpetual memorial and testimony. A court of record is undoubtedly a superior court which is itself competent to determine the scope of its jurisdiction. The High Court, as a court of record, has a duty to itself to keep all its records correctly and in accordance with law. Hence, if any apparent error is noticed by the High Court in respect of any orders passed by it the High Court has not only power, but a duty to correct it. The High Court’s power in that regard is plenary. In Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra a nine-Judge Bench of this Court has recognised the aforesaid superior status of the High Court as a court of plenary jurisdiction being a court of record.”

In a subsequent case of Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai v. Pratibha Industries Ltd. , reported in (2019) 3 SCC 203 , similar views have been expressed.

7. In the backdrop of the aforesaid discussion, let this Court deal with the grounds of review which would also require of brief narration of the background facts.

8. A batch of writ petitions were filed including WP(C)/5578/2020 which was by the present applicant. The issue involved a recruitment process for the post of Assistant Professor in various subjects in different Colleges across the State of Assam and the challenge was primarily based on the ground that the mode of selection was changed midway which is not permissible in law. This Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties had however dismissed the writ petitions vide the order dated 09.03.2022. Certain observations made would be relevant for the adjudication of the present application which are as follows:

“43. Though, the