IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Ravi Ranjan, Sujit Narayan Prasad, JJ.
Sunil Kumar Pandey - Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Home and ors. – Respondents
Civil Review No.69 of 2021
Decided On : 22-11-2022
Review Petition - Recruitment Dispute - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - 226 - Summary: The review petitioner challenged the termination of his service as a constable in the State of Jharkhand due to the educational qualification obtained from a school not recognized by the State Government. The court found that the order passed by a coordinate Division Bench in a similar case should have been followed, and allowed the review petition.
Fact of the Case:
The review petitioner was terminated from service as a constable in the State of Jharkhand due to his educational qualification obtained from a school not recognized by the State Government.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order passed by a coordinate Division Bench in a similar case should have been followed, and allowed the review petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the order passed by a coordinate Division Bench in a similar case should have been considered in the review petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that judicial discipline warrants following the order passed by the same Corum to maintain consistency, as per the legal position and scope of review.
Final Decision: The review petition was allowed, and the appeal was restored to its original file.
JUDGMENT :
Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner, at the outset, has sought leave of this Court to make necessary correction in the provision of law under which the instant review petition has been filed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is being given such liberty.
3. Necessary correction be made in course of the day.
4. The instant review petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for review of the judgment/order dated 20.11.2018 passed by the coordinate Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.476 of 2014 on the ground that the order passed by the another coordinate Division Bench of this Court on 07.07.2014 in L.P.A. No.419 of 2013 has not been considered which is exactly on the similar facts and circumstances.
5. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the petition, required to be enumerated, are as hereunder:-
It is the case of the review petitioner that an Advertisement No.01/2010 dated 25.03.2010 was floated in the newspaper regarding recruitment to the post of Constable in Police in the State of Jharkhand. As per the Advertisement No. 01/2010, the minimum educational qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of Constable was 7th Pass from the educational institution recognized by the State Government within the State of Jharkhand. The review petitioner was selected and appointed on the said post on the basis of School Leaving Certificate obtained from Amoli Apurwa High School at Mangandh, Chauparan, Hazaribagh and residential certificate produced by him. The said certificate shows that the petitioner had entered the said school on 23rd March, 1998 and left the school on 9th March, 1999, while, he was studying in Class-VIII which indicates that he had passed Class-VII Exam from the said school. The review petitioner was served with the show-cause notice vide dated 31st December, 2012 to reply as to why he should not be terminated from service as his educational certificate was obtained from the school which was not recognized by the State Government, as per the terms of the Advertisement and relevant provisions of the Police Manual. The petitioner seems to have submitted his reply, which however could not give satisfactory response as the school itself was recognized by the State Government upon the recommendation of the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi in the sessions 2008-2009 vide letter dated 22nd November, 2008 issued by the Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi. Therefore, the petitioner's service has been terminated vide Memo No.179 dated 28.01.2013.
The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the order as contained in Memo No.179 dated 28.01.2013, appended as Annexure-7 to the writ petition, whereby the services of the writ petitioner has been dismissed with immediate effect, has filed the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.5499 of 2013. But, the said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 07.10.2014, against which, letters patent appeal was filed being L.P.A. No.476 of 2014, wherein, the order passed by the coordinate Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.419 of 2013 dated 07.07.2014 has been annexed by taking the specific plea therein that the case of the writ petitioner is squarely covered with the order passed by the coordinate Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.419 of 2013, rather, it has been stated that the case of the writ petitioner stands on better footing as because he possess qualification of Intermediate from the recognized institution. But the letters patent appeal was dismissed vide order dated 20.11.2018 on the ground that the issue on fact has properly been appreciated by the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.5499 of 2013 vide judgment/order dated 07.10.2014.
6. The review petitioner against the order dated 20.11.2018 passed in L.P.A. No.476 of 2014 has filed instant review petition merely on the ground that the coordinate Divisi
U.P. Gram Panchayat Adhikari Sangh & Ors. Vs. Daya Ram Saroj & Ors.
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and, Anr. v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and Ors.
Judicial discipline warrants following the order passed by the same Corum to maintain consistency, as per the legal position and scope of review.
A review petition must demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record to warrant reconsideration of a judgment; mere repetition of previous arguments does not suffice.
The court upheld the validity of appointments made following a proper recruitment process, emphasizing adherence to constitutional mandates in public employment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of judicial discipline, the binding effect of earlier judgments, and the need for an authoritative pronouncement on conflicting lega....
Review jurisdiction is strictly confined to evident errors; reiteration of previously dismissed arguments does not justify a review.
The court reaffirmed that a review petition cannot substitute for an appeal and must strictly address clear errors without reevaluating merits or facts.
The court affirmed that review petitions require strong justifications such as new evidence or errors apparent on the record; mere dissatisfaction with prior judgments is insufficient.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.