THE MANIPUR UNIVERSITY AND ORS. Vs. PURNA CHANDRA THOUDAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned senior counsel for the review petitioners. Heard also Mr. Rarry, learned counsel for the respondent (writ petitioner).

(2.) THE present review petition has been filed by the Manipur University and another seeking review of the judgment and order dated 06 -01 -2015 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 14 of 2010, mainly on the ground that a new document has come to the possession of the Manipur University which would substantially change the course of the decision. It has been submitted that the said document would show that the writ petitioner was aware of the University Grants Commission scheme for grant for advance increment to teachers who acquired Ph.D during service (prior to 01 -01 -1996) in the year 2002, and hence, as the writ petition was filed belatedly in 2010 making the claim for the said benefit, the writ petition would be hit by delay and laches. In this regard, Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned senior counsel, has referred to Para Nos. 23 and 24 of the Judgment and order dated 06 -01 -2015, and has submitted that as recorded in the aforesaid para 23, the case of the writ petitioner was that though the UGC had taken the policy decision to grant the benefit of two advance increments in the year 2001, the petitioner claimed to have become aware of the fact that the Government of Manipur implemented the said scheme in 2004, only after he had returned from Mysore on completion of his fellowship in the year 2007. It was the case of the petitioner after he unsuccessfully represented the authorities for grant of the said benefit he filed the writ petition in 2010 to avail the said benefit.

(3.) MR . Rarry, learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent herein, however, has vehemently objected to the maintainability of the review petition by submitting that the same is not maintainable as it involves hearing on merit and the issue raised by the review petitioner is not one relating to correction of any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Mr. Rarry, learned counsel relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parsion Devi and ors. v. Sumitri Devi and ors. reported in : (1997) 8 SCC 715 submits that a review application would lie only to correct a mistake or error which is apparent on the face of the record and not for correction of an erroneous decision. Mr. Rarry, learned counsel submits that in the present case, the Manipur University authorities is seeking a re -hearing of the matter on merit on the basis of an application stated to have been filed by the petitioner on 22 -04 -2002 (Annexure - A/19 to the review petition). Referring to para 23 of the judgment and order in issue, Mr. Rarry submits that what had been recorded in para 23 is that, though the UGC had taken the policy decision to grant the benefit of two advance increments in the year 2001, the Government of Manipur, under which the Manipur University was functioning at the relevant time, took the decision to implement the scheme only in the later part of 2004. Mr. Rarry, learned counsel therefore submits that even if the petitioner had submitted an application in 2002, no benefit could have been granted till the State Government took the decision to implement the scheme which was only in the later part of 2004. Mr. Rarry reiterates that the fact remains that the State Government took the decision to grant the benefit only in the later part of 2004 which came to the knowledge of the writ petitioner only in the year 2007 after he returned from Mysore. Therefore, Mr. Rarry has submitted that submission of the application of the writ petitioner in 2002 to the Manipur University, even if accepted, will not make any difference as regards the merit of the case, as he would not have been able to enjoy the said benefit in 2002. In any event, it cannot be said to be an error or mistake apparent on record which could be rectified through a review petition.