1.

This is an application seeking clarification of the order dated

24.6.2016 passed by this court in W.P. No.321 of 2015.

Shri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant-

Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur submits that the applicant is seeking

clarification of said order only to a limited extent. The respondent no. 1

was directed to be regularized on the post of Junior Engineer. This could

not be pointed out/noticed that the respondent no. 1 does not have

minimum essential qualification to become a Junior Engineer. To this

extent, the order passed in W.P. No. 321 of 2015 deserves to be modified.

3.

It is noteworthy that learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation

apprised this court that Writ Appeal No. 453/2016 and other connected

matters filed by the Corporation were dismissed by a common reasoned

order by the Division Bench on 9.8.2016. Aggrieved, the Corporation

filed a SLP which was dismissed in liminie on 13.8.2019. The contention

of learned counsel for the applicant is that in view of judgment of

Supreme Court in (2000) 6 SCC 359 (Konhayammed Vs. State of

3

Kerala), since SLP was dismissed on the first hearing and was not

converted into an appeal, the doctrine of merger order of this court cannot

be presumed. Thus, the necessary clarification in the aforesaid order may

be ordered.

4.

Countering the aforesaid argument, Shri K.C. Ghildiyal, learned

Senior Counsel for the private respondent submits that the order of this

court in W.P. No. 321 of 2015 was unsuccessfully challenged by the

present applicant before the writ appellate court and in view of detailed

order of Division Bench, order of this court stood merged in the order of

Division Bench. Thus, no clarification/review is permissible. Apart from

that, there is considerable delay in seeking clarification. For this reason

also, application may be dismissed.

5.

No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties. I have

heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

6.

Although application is artistically worded as an ‘application

seeking clarification’, for all practically purposes, in my view, the

applicant is seeking review of order dated 24.6.2016 passed in W.P. No.

321 of 2015. Had it been captioned “review petition”, at the threshold it

would have been clear that the petitioner is required to satisfy the

principles flowing from Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. This court while

exercising the review jurisdiction is obliged to examine the petition on the

4

touchstone of the broad principles flowing from Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.

The Apex Court in (2006) 8 SCC 686 (Union of India and others Vs.

B. Valluvan and others) poignantly held that -

“16. The Division Bench of the High Court

committed a serious error in entering into the merit

of the matter while exercising its review

jurisdiction. The Court's jurisdiction to review its

own judgment, as is well known, is limited. The

High Court, indisputably, has a power of review,

but it must be exercised within the framework of

Section 114 read with Order 47 of the Code of

Civil Procedure. The High Court did not arrive at a

finding that there existed an error on the face of the

record. In fact, the High Court, despite noticing the

argument advanced on behalf of the Union of India

that the 1st respondent had no legal right to be

appointed, proceeded to opine that the panel

prepared for filling up of future vacancies should

be given effect to. The review of the High Court

was not only contrary to the circular letter issued

by the Union of India, but also contrary to the

general principles of law.”

7.

Unless the above necessary ingredients are satisfied to entertain a

review petition, this petition cannot be entertained merely because it is

called as ‘application seeking clarification’. This is trite that a litigant is

not entitled to get something indirectly, which he cannot get directly :-

(See (1987) 1 SCC 378, (D.C. Wadhwa Dr. and others Vs. State of

Bihar and othe