The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of review is limited to correcting a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to correct an erroneous decision or permit a rehearing on fact and law.

JUDGMENT :

L. Mohapatra, J

1. The review Petitioner, who was opposite party No. 1 in W.P.(C) No. 224 of 2003 assails the judgment of this Court delivered in the said case as well as W.P.(C) No. 4493 of 2002.

2. The review Petitioner had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in an application u/s 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act vide O.A. No. 542 of 1995 alleging therein that he had served for more than three years as Inspector of Income Tax and appeared in the Departmental Examination held during June/July 1995, but results were published on 12.2.1996. He was allowed two annual increments with retrospective effect, i.e., from 3.7.1995. During the period from June/July 1995 and publication of result on 12.2.1996, five posts of Income Tax Officer (Group-B) were sanctioned for Orissa Region and in order to fill up the said posts, a Departmental Promotion Committee meeting was convened on 13.10.1995. His case was not considered because the result of the Departmental Examination had not been declared by then. His grievance before the Tribunal was that he having already appeared in the Departmental Examination and the Departmental Promotion Committee having convened the meeting before declaration of the results, his case should have been considered for promotion and kept in sealed cover till publication of the Departmental Examination results. In the alternative, a review DPC meeting should have been convened to consider the cases of those Inspectors of Income Tax who cleared the Departmental Examination and promotions on the basis of recommendation of the review DPC should have been given.

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application and directed the Department to hold the review DPC within a specified time and grant retrospective promotion to the review Petitioner by extending notional financial benefit for the intervening period. The said judgment of the Tribunal was challenged before this Court in two writ applications vide W.P.(C) No. 224 of 2003 and W.P.(C) No. 4493 of 2002. W.P.(C) No. 224 of 2003 was filed by the Department whereas W.P.(C) No 4493 of 2002 was filed by one Sovesh Chandra Mohanty challenging the said judgment. Both the writ applications were heard together and were disposed of by a common judgment dated 31.10.2008. The order of the Tribunal directing for a review DPC was set aside and all consequential orders passed in pursuance of the order of the Tribunal were directed to be recalled. Challenging the said judgment passed in the aforesaid writ applications, this review has been filed.

3. Before entering into the merits of the review petition, we would like to refer to some judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court defining the scope of review. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivdeo Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., reported in AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1909 held that there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. This question again came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh. In paragraph-11 of the judgment, the apex Court defined the scope of review. The said paragraph is quoted below:

What, however, we are now concerned with is whether the statement in the order of September 1959 that the case did not involve any substantial question of law is and 'error apparent on the face of the record'. The fact that on the earlier occasion the court held on an identical state of facts that a substantial question of law arose would not per se conclusive, for the earlier order itself might be erroneous. Similarly, even if the statement was wrong, it would not follow that it was an 'error apparent on the face of the record', for there is distinction which is real, though it