Review jurisdiction is limited; negative equality cannot create a right to appointment for an ineligible candidate.

Review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is confined to an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important matter, or other limited grounds, and cannot be used to reargue the merits or seek a fresh appraisal of evidence. In recruitment matters, a candidate who did not satisfy the prescribed cut-off or eligibility condition cannot claim appointment on the basis of alleged parity with others. The principle of negative equality does not create an enforceable right, even if some other candidates were allegedly treated incorrectly. The document therefore states that ineligible candidates cannot rely on discriminatory treatment to obtain appointment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the review petition disclosed any ground under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, including error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new and important matter. (ii) Whether the petitioner could claim appointment on the basis of alleged discriminatory treatment and parity with other candidates.

Issue (i): Whether the review petition disclosed any ground under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, including error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new and important matter.

Analysis: Review jurisdiction is confined to the limited grounds specified in Order 47 Rule 1. Reappraisal of evidence is impermissible, and an error apparent must be self-evident without elaborate argument. The petitioner had not appeared in the DPE examination by the relevant date and did not produce the certificate within the cut-off fixed by the recruitment process. The earlier decision had therefore proceeded on the correct application of the recruitment conditions and disclosed no patent error.

Conclusion: The review petition did not disclose any ground warranting interference, and the challenge on this basis failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner could claim appointment on the basis of alleged discriminatory treatment and parity with other candidates.

Analysis: The candidates relied upon had appeared in the DPE examination much earlier than the petitioner and were not similarly situated. Even if some appointments had been made wrongly, that would not create a enforceable right in favour of another candidate, because Article 14 does not permit negative equality. The alleged later submission of certificates by others did not alter the petitioner's own ineligibility under the recruitment conditions.

Conclusion: The plea of discrimination failed, and no right to appointment accrued to the petitioner on the basis of alleged parity.

Final Conclusion: The earlier order was found to be free from any error apparent on the face of the record, and the review application was not maintainable on the grounds urged.

Ratio Decidendi: Review cannot be used to reargue the merits of a concluded decision, and a candidate who was not eligible within the prescribed cut-off cannot claim appointment merely because some other candidates may have been treated incorrectly.

---