HC dismisses review petitions challenging constable RSI appointments for criminal case suppression claims

The AP HC dismissed all review petitions challenging appointments to constable and RSI posts. The petitioners argued that respondents' suppression of criminal case involvement constituted material fact suppression warranting disqualification. The HC held that review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent on record, not substituting views or re-hearing matters as appeals in disguise. Citing SC precedents, the court emphasized review cannot be exercised merely because decisions are arguably erroneous on merits. The judgments contained no apparent legal errors, and the petitions impermissibly sought re-litigation of previously decided issues.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Suppression of material facts in attestation forms.
2. Applicability of recruitment notification paragraphs 21 and 22.
3. Scope of review jurisdiction.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Suppression of Material Facts in Attestation Forms:
The primary issue was whether the suppression of involvement in criminal cases by the respondents in their attestation forms warranted disqualification from their posts. The learned Government Pleader argued that such suppression itself should incur disqualification, citing the case of Satish Chandra Yadav vs. Union of India and others (2023) 7 SCC 536, which held that suppression of information regarding criminal involvement leads to disqualification regardless of the nature of the offence or acquittal. However, the Coordinate Bench, while deciding the writ petitions, found that the criminal cases involved were trivial, occurred during the respondents' youth, and resulted in acquittals before the recruitment notification was issued. The Bench applied the principles from Avtar Singh vs. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471, Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India 2022 SCC OnLine SC 532, and Commissioner of Police vs. Sandeep Kumar (2011) 4 SCC 644, concluding that the orders of the Tribunal were legally sustainable and dismissed the writ petitions.

2. Applicability of Recruitment Notification Paragraphs 21 and 22:
The learned Government Pleader contended that paragraphs 21 and 22 of the recruitment notification, which mandate the verification of antecedents and disqualification for suppression of material facts, were not challenged and thus remained valid law. The review petitioners argued that the judgment under review could not be sustained without addressing these paragraphs. However, the court noted that this argument was not raised before the Coordinate Bench during the writ petitions and could not be introduced for the first time in a review petition. The court emphasized that the review jurisdiction does not allow for re-arguing the case on new grounds not previously raised.

3. Scope of Review Jurisdiction:
The court extensively discussed the scope of review jurisdiction, citing various precedents. It reiterated that review proceedings are confined to correcting apparent errors on the face of the record and are not meant to re-hear the case on merits. The court referenced multiple judgments, including Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (1980) 2 SCC 167, Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi (1997) 8 SCC 715, Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000) 6 SCC 224, and Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati (2013) 8 SCC 320, to underline that a review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to reargue or revisit the merits of the case. The court concluded that the Coordinate Bench's judgment was a possible view supported by law and did not suffer from any apparent error that would warrant a review.

Conclusion:
The court found no apparent error of law in the judgments under review and dismissed all the review petitions. The court held that the arguments presented by the learned Government Pleader did not fall within the permissible grounds for review and that the Coordinate Bench's decision was a legally sustainable view based on the facts and applicable legal principles.

Result:
All the review petitions were dismissed, and any pending miscellaneous petitions were closed in consequence.

---