The main legal point established in the judgment is that a review petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can only be maintained by a person who was a party to the judgment sought to be reviewed, and that it can only be based on error apparent on the face of the record.

S.C. Das, J.

By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners sought review of the common judgment and order, dated 26.02.2016, passed by this Court in WP(C) No.172 of 2015 and other writ petitions, in respect of the directions of this Court contained in Paragraph 87 [ subPara (vi), (vii) and (viii)] of the judgment.

2. We have heard learned counsel, Mr. D.K.Biswas for the petitioners and learned Advocate General assisted by learned counsel, Mr. B. Banerjee for the State-respondents.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Biswas that the petitioners were interveners in the writ petitions, disposed by impugned judgment dated 26.02.2016. They were not allowed to submit pleadings but argument advanced on behalf of the interveners i.e. the petitioners herein were heard by the Court. It is further submitted by Mr. Biswas, learned counsel that the petitioners were aggrieved by the directions contained in paragraph 87 [(vi), (vii) and (viii)] since those directions were not inconformity with the UGC guidelines in respect of selection of candidates for the post of Assistant Professor. According to Mr. Biswas, UGC was a party in the writ petitions but the relevant guidelines of UGC, which is the Apex body were not taken to the notice of the Court and, therefore, the directions contained in Para 87 issued by this Court are not only detrimental to the interest of the petitioners but apparently contrary to the guidelines of the UGC and hence, the directions are required to be reviewed. He has also submitted that API score is not required for the selection of Assistant Professor and that the reservation must be on cadre basis and not subject basis. Those were mistake apparent on the face of the record and so, the review application should be entertained and disposed of on merit.

4. Learned Advocate General, on the other hand, has submitted that the right of an intervener was to support or oppose the relief(s) claimed in the writ petitions. Since they have no right to claim any relief in the writ petitions, they cannot also pray for review of the judgment in respect of the reliefs contained therein. It is also submitted by learned Advocate General that the directions given by this Court in Para 87 of the judgment are the results of the discussions made in the judgment elaborately assigning reasons and if, any party aggrieved by the reasons may approach a superior forum but cannot seek a review.

5. The power of review which is exercised by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution flows from Section 114 read with Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC. For ready reference, we may quote here the provisions of Section 114 of CPC as well as Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC which read as follows:

“114. Review-Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved,

(a) bya decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.”

“Order XLVII, Rule1.Application for review of judgment-(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes,

and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a re