R.P.No.564/2010
20.01.2011
Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on I.A.No.11698/2010, an application for condonation of
delay.
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
condoned.
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.
Facts
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
A.Praj.
