TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 1451
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitions. 2. These review petitions are filed to review the common judgment dated 26.04.2023 passed in W.P.Nos.33306/2012, 17758/2013, 24990/2014 & 29006/2018. Facts of the case: 3. The respondents in W.P.No.33304 of 2012, W.P.No.177518 and W.P.No.24000 of 2014 were initially selected as police constable in the State Police Service. The respondent in W.P.No.29006 of 2018 was selected as Reserve Sub Inspector (AR) as they were found to be qualified and eligible for appointment. Later on, on the ground of suppression of the factum of their involvement in respective criminal cases in the attestation form, the respondent in W.P.No.330306 of 2012 who was undergoing training and was in probation, was discharged from service and with respect to the respondents in other writ petitions, their selection was cancelled. All the respondents filed separate original application before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (APAT). The same were allowed. The impugned orders were set aside by the Tribunal. The petitioners -State of A.P and its authorities preferred writ petitions as mentioned above. All the writ petitions have been dismissed by the common judgment and order dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nto consideration. 8. Learned Government Pleader, advanced second submission that Paras 21 and 22 of the recruitment notification Rc.No.670/R&T/Genl.2/2008 dated 30.12.2008, issued by the State Level Police Recruitment Board, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad provided as under: "21. Antecedents verification: No person shall be eligible for appointment to any service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the selection authority as well as the appointing authority that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service. 22. Suppression of material facts or withholding any factual information either in the application or in the attestation form (which would be supplied to the candidates who will be provisionally selected) with disqualify the candidate from being considered for appointment. In the event of any information being found false or incorrect or ineligibility being detected at any time even after appointment, he/she will be discharged from service forthwith by the appointing authority without giving any notice." His submission is that there was no challenge to those paragraphs 21 and 22 which are in the nature of law and absence of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed: "What, however, we are now concerned with is whether the statement in the order of September 1959 that the case did not involve any substantial question of law is an 'error apparent on the face of the record'). The fact that on the earlier occasion the Court held on an identical state of facts that a substantial question of law arose would not per se be conclusive, for the earlier order itself might be erroneous. Similarly, even if the statement was wrong, it would not follow that it was an 'error apparent on the face of the record', for there is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by 'error apparent'. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error." (emphasis ours) 8. Again, in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury [(1995) 1 SCC 170] while quoting with approval a passage from Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma [(1979) 4 SCC 389] this Court once again held that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r and on behalf of the petitioners before the Bench which, after considering those pleas, passed the judgment in Sarla Mudgal case [Sarla Mudgal, President, Kalyani v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 635 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 569] . ... Error contemplated under the rule must be such which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. It must be an error of inadvertence.... No other sufficient cause has been shown for reviewing the judgment. The words "any other sufficient reason appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC" must mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule" as was held in Chhajju Ram v. Neki [AIR 1922 PC 112 : 49 IA 144] and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius [AIR 1954 SC 526 : (1955) 1 SCR 520] . Error apparent on the face of the proceedings is an error which is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law. In T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa [AIR 1954 SC 440 : (1955) 1 SCR 250] this Court held that such error is an error which is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision. In Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque [AIR 1955 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CC Online SC 1034 the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that, the Court cannot arrive at a different conclusion even if two views are possible. Under the grab of filing a review petition, a party cannot be permitted to repeat old and overruled arguments for reopening the conclusions arrived at in a judgment. Paragraph 31 is as under: "31. As can be seen from the above exposition of law, it has been consistently held by this Court in several judicial pronouncements that the Court's jurisdiction of review, is not the same as that of an appeal. A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. In the guise of exercising powers of review, the Court can correct a mistake but not substitute the view taken earlier merely because there is a possibility of taking two views in a matter. A judgment may also be open to review when any new or important matter of evidence has emerged after passing of the judgment, subject to the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ror apparent" by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22(3)(f) of the Act. To put it differently an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the court/tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while exercising the power of review, the court/tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision......" 19. In Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer (2024) 2 SCC 362 on considering various pronouncements on the subject, the Hon'ble Apex Court summarized the gist in paragraph-16 as under: "16. The gist of the aforestated decisions is that: 16.1. A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ast analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. [(2013) 8 SCC 337 : JT (2013) 8 SC 275] 20.2. When the review will not be maintainable: (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion in Firm Chhotabhai Jethabai Patel & Co. v. State of M.P. [(1952) 2 SCC 772 : AIR 1953 SC 108 : 1953 SCR 476] The legislature can also validate an Act which was declared invalid by the Court or amend it with retrospective effect so as to remove the grounds of its invalidity. (See: Rai Ramkrishna v. State of Bihar [AIR 1963 SC 1667 : (1963) 50 ITR 171 : (1964) 1 SCR 897] and Jadao Bahuji v. Municipal Committee [AIR 1961 SC 1486] .)" 24. There can be no dispute on the proposition of law laid down therein that to declare the law is the judicial power and the legislative power. It is within the exclusive power of the judiciary to hold that the statute passed by the legislature is ultra vires and that the legislature cannot directly override the judicial decision though it retains the plenary power to alter the law as settled or declared by the judicial decisions. The said judgment, in our view, is neither applicable nor attracted in the present case. The present respondents' O.As having been allowed by the Tribunal and the writ petitions having been filed by the present review petitioners, there was no occasion for the respondents to challenge paras-21 and 22, even if in the sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat while passing the order of cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information, and further, the principle that in case of suppression or false information of involvement of criminal case, where acquittal has already been recorded, the employer can still consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee. The emphasis was laid that though the person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to the facts of the cases. 28. Paragraph-21 of Ravindra Kumar (supra) is as follows: "21. The law on this issue is settled by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Avtar Singh (Supra). Paras 34, 35, 36 & 38, which sets out the conclusions, are extracted herein below:- "34. No doubt about it that verification of character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....: 38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse. 38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee. 38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee. 38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. 38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....:- 10... ... In our opinion, we should display the same wisdom as displayed by Lord Denning. 11. As already observed above, youth often commits indiscretions, which are often condoned. 12. It is true that in the application form the respondent did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case under Sections 325/34 IPC. Probably he did not mention this out of fear that if he did so he would automatically be disqualified. At any event, it was not such a serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view should be taken in the matter." "24. Thereafter, in Avtar Singh (supra) dealing with Sandeep Kumar (supra), this Court observed as under: This Court has observed that suppression related to a case when the age of Sandeep Kumar was about 20 years. He was young and at such age people often commit indiscretions and such indiscretions may often be condoned. The modern approach should be to reform a person instead of branding him a criminal all his life. In [Morris v. Crown Office, [1970] 2 Q.B. 114 : [1970] 2 WLR 792 (CA)], the observations made were that young people are no ordinary criminals. There is no violenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t be substituted, in the exercise of the review jurisdiction. 32. The view which has been taken by the writ court in dismissing the writ petition of the review petitioners, is also a possible view which could be taken in the facts of the present case, and is having the support of the law as in the cases of Sandeep Kumar (supra) and Pawan Kumar (supra). The writ Court referred the judgment in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) as well. The other view also might be possible on the strength of Satish Chandra Yadav (supra) and Chetan Jeff (supra), in which it was held that the nature of the offence being trivial and otherwise and the factum of acquittal and conviction is not relevant at all and what is relevant is that there was concealment and suppression of material fact with regard to the antecedents and consequently, such candidate was not entitled for being given appointment, and if already appointed, was not entitled to be retained the employer, having right to refuse appointment or to cancel the appointment merely on the ground of suppression of material fact in attestation form. 33. If the Coordinate Bench has taken one view having the support of law, it cannot be a ground f....