ORDER
Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.
1. This application, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on behalf of the petitioner-State of Bihar along with other authorities is for review of the order dated 18.04.2007 passed on a writ petition vide C.W.J.C. No. 1637 of 2007 filed by the writ petitioner herein respondent first set, for quashing the order of cancellation of his appointment on the post of Panchayat Shikshak in Primary School as per letter No. 37 dated 02.12.2006, as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application. The reasons for cancellation of appointment is to the effect that on verification it was detected that the writ petitioner had produced the passing certificate of the Intermediate examination in the vocational course and since there is no provision for appointment of a candidate possessing certificate of the aforesaid course, the appointment was cancelled. Admittedly, the Rule for such appointment is that a candidate should possess the qualification of passing of Intermediate examination or equivalent.
2. The writ petitioner while assailing the aforesaid order of cancellation relied upon the decision of the Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Council’), established under the provisions of the Bihar Intermediate Education Council Act, 1992 vide communique No. 56/96 dated 4.09.1996 as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application, in order to show that passing of Intermediate examination in vocational course conducted by the Council is equivalent to Intermediate, +2 level in the Arts and Commerce, and therefore, cancellation of the appointment of the writ petitioner was assailed on the plea that the ground for cancellation of his appointment as Panchayat Shikshak is illegal and as such not sustainable in law.
3. It is an admitted position, as stated in review application, that the copy of the aforesaid writ petition was received by the administrative department of the State on 14th February, 2007 and the case was taken up for hearing in the admission matter on 18th April, 2007. Neither counter affidavit was filed in the meantime nor any prayer was made seeking further time for filing counter affidavit, if any. While the matter was being heard the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State also could not oppose the above submission of the petitioner that he possessed the valid qualification in view of the decision of the Council as per the press communique No. 56/96 dated 4.9.1996 (Annexure-3). Upon hearing both the parties, the order cancelling the appointment of the petitioner vide memo No. 37 dated 02.12.2006, as contained in Annexure-6 of the writ application, was quashed. This Court while quashing the aforesaid order dated 2.12.2006 also took notice of the fact that the petitioner was appointed on 30th November, 2006 and his joining was accepted on 7th December, 2006 however, the letter of cancellation of his appointment was issued on 02.12.2006 vide letter No. 37 dated 2.12.2006 which was not understandable.
4. In this review application the order dated 18.04.2007 is sought to be reviewed primarily on the ground that the order is illegal and erroneous on merits since according to the review petitioner this Court failed to consider the aforementioned communique No. 56 dated 04.09.1996 (Annexure-3) correctly in its entirety as the decision of the Council in question is that passing of the Intermediate Examination in vocational course is equivalent to Intermediate, +2 level of examination in Arts and Commerce only for the purpose of taking admission in Ist year Bachelor degree course in Arts/Commerce and not for employment on the post of Panchayat Shikshak. It is submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General No. 3 that even if the order dated 14.08.2007 is taken to be consenting order, this Court should not have disposed of the writ petition in view of an earlier order passed by the Court on 12.02.2007 in CWJC No. 15730 of 2006, as contained in Annexure-1 of the Review application, whereby this Court allowed the prayer of the writ petitioner of the said case for withdrawal to enable him to pursue his representation already filed or to file a representation afresh for redressal of his grievances with direction to dispose of the representation by a reasoned order and take follow up action, if any. It has further been submitted that pursuant to the order dated 12.02.2007 (Annexure-1) the Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna disposed of the representation of the said case as per memo No. 1291 dated 30th April, 2007, as contained in Annexure-2 of the Review application i.e. after passing of the order dated 18.04.2007 sought to be reviewed. On perusal of the order dated 30.04.2007 (Annexure-2), it would appear that the Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar acknowledged and agreed that the certificate of passing of Intermediate in vocational course is equivalent to the normal Intermediate course. However, in nut-shell, the submission in support of the review application is to the effect that the order dated 18.04.2007 is illegal and erroneous on merit being passed without considering Annexure-3 of the writ application correctly in its entirety.
5. It was also submitted that the Court should not take upon itself the burden of adjudicating the equivalence of the two examinations i.e. Intermediate vocational course and normal Intermediate course. The learned A.A.G.III further drawn the attention of the Court to a division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Dhirendra Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2008(1) PLJR 583. The above decision is, however, of no help since by the order dated 18.4.2007 under review the question of equivalence of the aforesaid two examinations was neither considered nor decided. Similar is the position with regard to the decision in the case of Ganesh Prasad Shrivastava and Ors. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. as reported in 2004(1) PLJR 387.
6. In this case four interlocutory applications vide I.A. Nos. 6116/07, 465/08, 464/08 & 791/08 have been filed in opposition of the review application. On consideration the intervenors were allowed to intervene and were heard.
7. In opposition of the review application, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Ist Set (writ petitioner) only. It has been mainly submitted that the grounds for review of the order in question is not sustainable in law for allowing review of the order in question. It was further submitted that the order under review is legal and valid. Even though the case of the petitioner-State has no merit, the State if at all aggrieved by the order dated 18.04.2007 could have taken chance of assailing the order in an appeal and not by way of review application since the parameters in law for consideration of a matter in appeal and review are not the same. The learned Counsel further submits that the review petitioner has failed to point out any error of law in the order sought to be reviewed much less apparent error of law on the face of the record. The order dated 30th April, 2007 relied by the State passed by the Director, Primary Education, as contained in Annexure-2 to the review application is after passing of the order sought to be reviewed. The said order has been quashed by a Bench of this Court as per the order dated 19.02.2008 passed in the case of Prakash Kumar and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors. Vide CWJC No. 4878 of 2007 and analogous cases. While quashing the order dated 30th April 2007 this Court noticed the communique No. 56/96 dated 04.09.1996.
8. The certified copy of the order produced by the respondent has been kept on record.
Notwithstanding the above, the learned Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions contained in Sub-rule (k) of Rule 2 of the Bihar Intermediate Education Council (Establishment of Colleges and Conduct of Examination) Rules 1994, defines “faculty”, which is quoted below:
Faculty means the faculty of Arts, Science, Commerce or vocational education of a College or institution
9. The learned Counsel for the respondents further submits that the Intermediate in vocational education of the Council is equivalent to other stream of the Council at Intermediate level i.e. Arts, Science & Commerce.
10. It was further submitted that the matter regarding passing of Intermediate in vocational course is equivalent to Intermediate examination in Arts & Commerce, in similar circumstances, was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Vice-Chancellor, Jai Prakash University Chapra and Anr. v. Anmol Kumar Verma and Anr. reported in 2003 (1) PLJR 334. The Division Bench also decided the matter noticing the decision of the Council that vocational course is treated to be equivalent to Intermediate Arts & Commerce. As regards non-maintainability of the review application, the counsel has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Haridas Das v. Smt. Ushar Rani Manik and Ors. reported in 2006(2) PLJR 270(SC).
11. Upon hearing the rival submissions of the parties and perusal of their respective pleadings, it would appear that the primary contention raised on behalf of the State is to the effect that the order dated 18.04.2007 sought to be reviewed was passed without considering the communique No. 56/96 dated 04.09.1996, as contained in Annexure-3 to the connected writ application correctly in its entirety, and as such, the order is illegal and erroneous for the reason that on perusal of the aforesaid decision of the Council it would appear that passing of Intermediate examination in vocational course is equivalent to Intermediate examination of Arts and Commerce for the limited purpose of admission in the Ist year of Bachelor of degree course and not for any other purpose including employment. The decision in the case of Dhirendra Kumar Singh & Ors. (Supra) for the proposition that deciding level/equivalence of the educational examination is matter to be left to the expert bodies and the Court should not take over such exercises.
12. In my opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the decision is of no help to the State since this Court has not adjudicated or decided in any manner as to whether the Intermediate examination in vocational course is equivalent to the normal Intermediate course. As a matter of fact, the decision has been taken by the Council that both courses are equivalent which has also been acknowledged by the Director Primary Education Government of Bihar vide memo dated 30th April 2007, as contained in Annexure-2 of the review application. The State if aggrieved in the facts and circumstances, if advised, ought to have assailed the order by filing an appeal. It is well settled that the forum of review is not a substitute for appeal. The parameters for consideration under review and appeal are not substituting each other.
13. Therefore, the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent-Ist Set herein (writ petitioner) has substance that the review application is not maintainable relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Haridas Das (Supra) wherein the Apex Court has clearly held as noticed above quoting the observations of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma as which is reproduced below:
It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1963 SC 1908 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. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter of evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made, it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an Appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the sub-ordinate Court
14. Besides the above, I do not find any indication in the decision of the Council as contained in Annexure-3 of the writ application that passing of the Intermediate in vocational course is confined for admission in first year of Bachelor degree course only and is excluded for any other purposes. In view of the discussions made above, I do not find any merit in this review application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.