Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Dr Ruhul Amin Bepari, S/O M U Bepari – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam Represented By The Commissioner And Secretary To The Govt. Of Assam, Higher Education Department – Respondent
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 stri
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 change....
Point of Law : Court also has a corresponding duty to examine what is the nature of the change sought to be brought and simply, by the jargon "Rules of the game cannot be changed", this Court cannot ....
The scope of review is limited to considering only an error apparent on the face of the record. A review cannot be used as a tool for changing the opinion/view of the court, and it is essential that ....
Recruitment processes cannot alter eligibility criteria after commencement; revision of cut-off marks due to erroneous evaluation ensures fairness and does not violate the principles of non-arbitrari....
A review of a judgment is permissible only on specific grounds such as error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new evidence, and cannot be used to reargue the case or introduce new c....
Revision of recruitment cut-off marks based on correcting erroneous answer keys does not constitute altering selection criteria, preserving fairness and institutional integrity under Articles 14 and ....
Review applications must demonstrate new evidence or clear errors to be maintainable; mere reiteration of previous arguments is insufficient.
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
