STATE OF SIKKIM AND ANR. Vs. J.B. KHATTRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition seeking review of this Courts judgment dated 1.6.1995 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 5 of 1994 whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent for a direction to the State Government to implement its order dated 17.7.1986 (Annexure P 5) and to accord the due benefits to the petitioner thereof was allowed.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners has very vehemently submitted that there is an error apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as this Court failed to take into consideration Rule 4 of the Establishment Rules, 1974 which provides the various modes of appointment and any appointment made contrary thereto is void abinitio. Moreover. Annexure P 5 does not clothe the respondent with any right of appointment to the post of the lowest Gazetted grade. He has further submitted that the error is so manifest that it should not be allowed to remain on record and has placed reliance on Ganga Prasad Vs. Saroop Dei, AIR 1951 All. 568, Keshodass Vs. Murtaza Ali Khan, AIR 1952 All. 318, Hari Vishnu Vs. Ahmad Ishaque, AIR 1955 SC 233. S.P. Awate Vs. C.P. Fernades, AIR 111959 Bom. 466, Mohd. Sultan Zargar Vs. Custodian General, AIR 1960 J & K 125, Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs. Govt, of A.P. , AIR 1964 SC 1372. Medical and Denial College Vs. Nagaraj, AIR 1972 Mysore 44, Ammalu Vs. K Vellachi, AIR 1974 Kerala 116. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of the record. The point regarding Rule 4 has not been taken up in the counter filed by the State. He has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Civil Review Petition No. 1 of 1994, Prabhamit Ruchal Vs. State of Sikkim as also on the following authorities, Ramkhelawan Singh Vs. Monila, AIR 1939 Patna 678, Satyanarayan Vs. Mallikarjun1, AIR 1960 SC 137, A.T. Sharma Vs. A.P. Sharma, AIR 1979 SC 1047, Chandrakant Vs. Shripad, AIR 1989 Bom. 91, Meera Bhanja Vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, AIR 1995 SC 455.

(3.) I have carefully gone through the judgment of this Court and also the authorities relied on by the leanred Counsel-for the parties. Respondent had filed a writ petition for a declaration that his appointment to the Gazetted post is effective from the date he joined SIMFED. Facts of the case have been narrated in detail in the judgment of this Court and while disposing of the writ petition this Court had directed that the order of the Govt, dated 17.7.1986, Annexure P 5, should be implemented. Since the above order has not been superseded cancelled or annulled. The power of review by the High Court is very limited. When a decision is challenged on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of the record, the error contemplated should be an error so manifest, so clear, that no Court would permit such an error to remain on the record. The error is not an error which could be demonstrated by a process of ratiocination, nor would it be correct to say that when two views on a question of law are possible and the Court has taken one view, the fact that the other view is a more acceptable view, would render the first view an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there are conceivably two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record. It is well settled that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal. Ordinarily, the power of review can be exercised on the discovery- of new and important matter or 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 Subordinate Court. In the present case, I do not find any error much less manifest, apparent on the face of the record and therefore, I am not inclined to accept this review petition. The review petition is dismissed with no orders as to costs. Review Petition dismissed.