AI Overview...
Grounds of Filling Review - Summary
Main Points and Insights
- Jurisdiction and Grounds for Review:
-
Review petitions are limited to specific grounds such as errors apparent on the record, new evidence, or procedural irregularities. General dissatisfaction or re-argument of the case is not permissible. (Paras 1-17, Rajesh Srivastava vs Union of India through the Secretary, to the Government of India, Department of Posts - Central Administrative Tribunal, Union of India VS Jitendra Mukhariya - Madhya Pradesh)
-
Procedural Principles and Fairness:
- Courts emphasize adherence to established principles in filling vacancies, including proper sequencing and reservation procedures. Violations of these principles can form grounds for review or cancellation of recruitment orders. (Paras 1, 4, 15-18, Krishna Kuamr Yadav vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh)
-
Principles of natural justice, such as providing parties an opportunity to be heard, are critical. Failure to do so can justify recalling or reviewing orders. (Paras Alagappa Chettiar Educational Trust Represented by its Secretary Mrs. Umayal Ramanathan, Chennai VS S. Goodluck Rajendran - Madras, Alagappa Chettiar Educational Trust Represented by its Secretary Mrs. Umayal Ramanathan, Chennai VS S. Goodluck Rajendran - Madras)
-
Delay and Laches:
-
Significant delays (e.g., over 11 years) in filing review petitions without satisfactory explanation are generally viewed as unjustified, leading to dismissal. Timeliness is a key criterion for maintainability. (Para BALU RAMA PUJARI VS GURULINGAPPA MALLAPPA BAILWAD - Karnataka)
-
Scope and Limitations of Review:
- Review is not an appeal and cannot be used to re-argue cases or seek rehearing based on merits. It is confined to correcting errors such as mistakes of law or fact on record. (Paras CHANDRA BHUSHAN PANDEY VS NARAIN SINGH, MINISTER OF HORTICULTURE DEPTT. LKO. - Allahabad, Union of India VS Jitendra Mukhariya - Madhya Pradesh)
-
Courts have dismissed review petitions where the grounds were insufficient, such as reliance on previous judgments without new evidence, or seeking to reopen settled issues. (Paras Union of India VS Jitendra Mukhariya - Madhya Pradesh, Padda Sarkar @ Padda Rani Sarkar, D/o. Hem Chandra Das @ Hem Chandra Mandal, W/o. Kartik Sarkar VS Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs - Gauhati)
-
Specific Cases:
- Orders related to administrative tribunals and disciplinary actions are subject to judicial review, but only on procedural or legal grounds, not on merits unless arbitrariness or perversity is shown. (Paras Rajesh Srivastava vs Union of India through the Secretary, to the Government of India, Department of Posts - Central Administrative Tribunal)
- In cases where orders were recalled or modified, courts have emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and proper impleadment of parties. (Paras Alagappa Chettiar Educational Trust Represented by its Secretary Mrs. Umayal Ramanathan, Chennai VS S. Goodluck Rajendran - Madras, Alagappa Chettiar Educational Trust Represented by its Secretary Mrs. Umayal Ramanathan, Chennai VS S. Goodluck Rajendran - Madras)
Analysis and Conclusion
- Grounds for Filing Review:
-
Valid grounds include errors apparent on record, procedural violations, or new evidence that could not have been previously available. Mere disagreement or delay in filing are insufficient.
-
Limitations:
-
Review petitions are limited in scope and cannot be used to re-argue merits or seek rehearing. They must be filed within a reasonable time, with proper justification for any delay.
-
Procedural Fairness:
-
Ensuring natural justice and adherence to procedural norms is crucial. Orders passed without giving parties a fair opportunity can be challenged through review.
-
Practical Implication:
- Courts tend to dismiss review petitions where the petitioner fails to establish a cogent ground, especially if the delay is unreasonable or the issue involves re-argument of settled facts.
References: - Paras 1, 4, 15-18, Krishna Kuamr Yadav vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh - Paras BALU RAMA PUJARI VS GURULINGAPPA MALLAPPA BAILWAD - Karnataka, Vijay Pal VS State of Haryana - Punjab and Haryana, CHANDRA BHUSHAN PANDEY VS NARAIN SINGH, MINISTER OF HORTICULTURE DEPTT. LKO. - Allahabad, Padda Sarkar @ Padda Rani Sarkar, D/o. Hem Chandra Das @ Hem Chandra Mandal, W/o. Kartik Sarkar VS Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs - Gauhati, Alagappa Chettiar Educational Trust Represented by its Secretary Mrs. Umayal Ramanathan, Chennai VS S. Goodluck Rajendran - Madras, Alagappa Chettiar Educational Trust Represented by its Secretary Mrs. Umayal Ramanathan, Chennai VS S. Goodluck Rajendran - Madras, Rajesh Srivastava vs Union of India through the Secretary, to the Government of India, Department of Posts - Central Administrative Tribunal, Union of India VS Jitendra Mukhariya - Madhya Pradesh, B. Agrawal & Others vs Union of India & Ors - Central Administrative Tribunal
Search Results for "Grounds of Filling Review"
2024 0 Supreme(MP) 769 • India - IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, VINAY SARAF
(Paras 1, 4, 15-18) ... ... (B) Judicial Review - Grounds for ... cancellation of recruitment - The court emphasized that the procedure for filling up vacancies must comply with established principles ... Now, coming to the correctness of the procedure prescribed by the revised notification for filling up the seats, it was wrong to direct the fifteen percent special reservations seats to be filled up first and then take up the OC (merit quota (followed by filing of OBC, SC and ST quotas). ... Learned ....
2007 0 Supreme(Kar) 582 • India - Karnataka
V.GOPALA GOWDA, C.R.KUMARASWAMY
Review - Scope - If a review petition is maintainable for setting aside order passed in a writ petition. ... nbsp;Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Order passed under - If can be set aside in a review ... Even though we are aware that parties should not be denied justice on technical grounds, in this case there is inordinate delay of more than 11 years in filling this review petition. Satisfactory explanation is not offered to condone the delay. The reason given for the de....
2020 0 Supreme(P&H) 505 • India - Punjab and Haryana
ARUN KUMAR TYAGI
Finding of the Court: The Court observed that the impugned order is assailed on the grounds that the trial Court having ... Issues: Whether the impugned order amounts to review of above said orders which is not permissible and whether the Court is ... closed the evidence of the prosecution after giving sufficient opportunities to it for production of the same could not review order ... standi and review of order closing prosecution evidence and filling of lacuna not being permissible. ... The impugne....
2011 0 Supreme(All) 3367 • India - Allahabad
UMA NATH SINGH, ANIL KUMAR
Constitution of India, 1950—Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Section 141 and Order XLVII, Rule 1—Review petition—Maintainability—Grounds ... —High Court found that this ground too is not permissible for review, clarifying law on review. ... petitioner is not 'person aggrieved' and has no 'locus standi' to file writ petition—After dismissal of writ petition, petitioner filed review ... Further, the review lies only on the grounds mentioned in Order XLVII....
2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 1067 • India - Gauhati
MANASH RANJAN PATHAK, NELSON SAILO
grounds to warrant a review of the previous order. ... with a previous ruling does not constitute sufficient grounds for review. ... for review, including errors apparent on the record and the necessity of timely filing, ultimately dismissing the review petition ... In the given facts of that case, no cogent grounds was furnished for the delay between 20 and 26 months by the two parties in filling their applications for re....
2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 2275 • India - Madras
R.K.AGRAWAL, T.RAJA
The review applicants were not impleaded as necessary parties in the original writ petition. ... The court recalled the order and allowed the review applicants to be impleaded in the writ petition.] ... The court recalled the order and allowed the review applicants to be impleaded in the writ petition. ... Although several other important grounds have been taken in the review application, this Court, finding that the impugned order challenged in the present review application, as highl....
2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 2272 • India - Madras
R.K.AGRAWAL, T.RAJA
The court recalled the order and restored the writ petition to file, ordering the review applicants to be impleaded as respondents ... Summary: The court found that the order passed in the writ petition violated the principles of natural justice by not giving the review ... Fact of the Case: The review application was filed challenging the correctness of the order passed in a writ petition ... Although several other important grounds have been taken in the review application, this Court, finding that ....
2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 9610 • India - Central Administrative Tribunal
Lok Ranjan, A, Ranjana Shahi, J
(Paras 1-17) ... ... (B) Jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunal - Nature of review - Reaffirmed ... that the Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the Inquiry Officer unless arbitrary or perverse - On grounds of proportionality ... absence of malafide intentions - Orders of removal quashed and reinstatement granted with consequential benefits - Public interest in filling ... Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. ... The pow....
2021 0 Supreme(MP) 218 • India - Madhya Pradesh
PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, B.K.SHRIVASTAVA
Final Decision: The review petition was dismissed as no ground for review was made out. ... Issues: The issues involved the reliance on previous judgments, the applicability of circulars, and the grounds for exercising ... limited power of review. ... The grounds which petitioners are raising are not available for exercising limited power of review as in the guise of the review petition, the petitioners are seeking to reopen the matter and reheari....
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 10799 • India - Central Administrative Tribunal
Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, J, Pramod Kumar Das, A
The final order dismissed the review application after recalling the former order, restoring O.A. for hearing. ... By filing the instant RA on 12.02.2025, the applicants have sought to review the order on the grounds as under:- “..3. ... That this Hon'ble Tribunal, without deal with and in overlooking the documents relied by the applicants vide its order 20.01.2025 dismissed the case of the applicants which leads to filling this review application” Union of India & Ors.........#HL_STAR....
Filter by Legal Phrase
