Yogesh Gurjar vs Collector Range Pipariya on 20 January, 2010

Madhya Pradesh High Court
Yogesh Gurjar vs Collector Range Pipariya on 20 January, 2010
         Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
         Heard on I.A.No.11698/2010, an application for condonation of 
         From   the   reasons   stated   in   the   application,   which   is   duly 
supported by an affidavit, we find that sufficient cause for condonation 
of   delay   is   made   out.     Accordingly,   the   delay   in   filing   the   appeal   is 
         I.A.No.11698/2010 is accordingly allowed.
         Heard on the question of admission.
         This review petition has been filed for review of the order dated 
5.8.2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.641/2010.

 giving rise to filing of the review petition briefly stated are 
that   the   petitioner   was   engaged   on   the   post   of   Sub   Engineer   on 
contract   basis   for   a   period   of   one   year   by   order   dated   22.12.2007. 
Thereafter, the appointment of the petitioner was extended from time 
to   time   upto   30.4.2010.     A   show   cause   notice   was   issued   to   the 
petitioner on the ground that he has committed certain irregularities in 
the work performed by him.   The petitioner submitted a reply to the 
show cause notice, which was not found satisfactory.  Thereafter, by an 
order dated 2.6.2010, the contract appointment of the petitioner was 
terminated.   The petitioner challenged the validity of the order in the 
writ petition before the learned single Judge.  Learned single Judge vide 
order   dated   30.6.2010   dismissed   the   writ   petition   preferred   by   the 
petitioner.     The   order   passed   by   the   learned   single   Judge   was 
challenged by the petitioner in Writ Appeal No.641/2010.

This Court vide order dated 5.8.2010 declined to interfere with 
the order passed by the learned single Judge on the ground that on the 
date when the order terminating the contractual appointment of the 
petitioner was passed, his appointment had ceased to be in existence. 
A finding was also recorded by this Court that from tenor of the order 
dated  2.6.2010, the  same  does not appear  to be  stigmatic in  nature. 
Accordingly, the writ appeal was dismissed. 

Learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner   submitted   that   competent 
authority to make appointment, to grant extension and to terminate 
the services of the employee appointed on contractual basis is District 
Level Committee.  However, the order of termination in the case of the 
petitioner has been passed by the Chief Executive Officer who is not the 
competent authority and, therefore, the order dated 5.8.2010 passed by 
this Court deserves to be reviewed. 

We have considered the submission made by learned counsel for 
the petitioner.

From perusal of the order dated 5.8.2010, it is apparent that the 
solitary  contention  raised before this Court was that the  petitioner’s 
case was similar to that of petitioner in Writ Petition No.7830/2010(s). 
Though   the   said  writ  petition   was  entertained  by   the  learned   single 
Judge   and   an   interim   order   was   passed   on   2.10.2010,   yet   the   writ 
petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.   This Court dealt 
with the aforesaid submission while passing the order dated 5.8.2010 
and held that on 2.6.2010, the appointment of the petitioner was not in 
existence whereas, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.7830/2010(s) was 
in   employment   when   an   order   terminating   his   services   was   passed. 
Therefore,   the   petitioner   cannot   claim   parity   with   the   case   of   the 
petitioner in Writ Petition No.7830/2010(s).

It is well settled in law that in order to seek review of order the 
party   applying   for   review   has   to   demonstrate   that   the   order   suffers 
from a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record which 
means the mistake or error, which is  prima facie  visible and does not 
require any detailed examination.  Mere erroneous view of law is not a 
ground for review.  In order to seek review of the order, the error has to 
be   an   error   or   inadvertence   and   should   be   manifest   on   the   face   of 
record.     Under   the   guise   of   review   the   parties   are   not   entitled   to 
rehearing of the same issue. [See: State of West Bengal and others Vs.  

Kamal Sengupta and another  (2008) 8 SCC 612,  S. Bagirathi Ammal 
Vs.   Palani   Roman   Catholic   Mission,  (2009)   10   SCC   464].           The 
Supreme Court has held that a new plea cannot be allowed to be raised 
in   the   review  petition.[See   Inderchand   Jain  (dead)   through   Lrs.   Vs.  
MOtilal (dead) through Lrs. (2009) 14 SsCC 663].  Thus, in view of well 
settled legal position, the petitioner in this review petition cannot be 
permitted to raise the new plea which was not raised in writ appeal.

The review petition is without merit, it is accordingly dismissed.

                      (S.R.Alam)                                    (Alok Aradhe)
                     Chief Justice                                      Judge

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *