TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 1451
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re 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 26.04.2023 by the Co-ordinate Bench. The w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vanced 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 any challenge to such law, the said law not having been declared ultra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ber 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 have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. 9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rla 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 SC 233 : (1955) 1 SCR 1104] it was held: "[I]It is essential that it should be something more than a mere error; it must be one whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 condition that such evidence was not within the knowledge of the party seeking review or could not be produced by it when the order was made despite undertak....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ither 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. 16.2. A judgment pronounced by the court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment 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. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived." 21. We now proceed to deal with the submissions of the learned GP in the light of settled law on scope of review as in aforesaid judgments. Second submission of the learned GP: 22. We would deal with the secon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (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 submission of the learned GP the same was required though we are of the different view. The question as to the applicability of the law as laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Avtar Singh and others (supra) have been considered by the Coordinate Bench in deciding the writ petitions. First submission of the learned GP 25. On the first submission, w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ill 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 suitability and it is open to employer to adjudge antecedents of the incumbent, but ultimate action should be based upon objective criteria on due consideration of all relevant aspects. 35. Suppression of "material" information presupposes that what is suppressed that "matters" not every technical or trivial matter. The employer has to act on due consideration of rules/instr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion, may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case. 38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 violence, dishonesty or vice in them. They were trying to preserve the Welsh language. Though they have done wrong but we must show mercy on them and they were permitted to go back to their studies, to their parents and continue the good course." 30. In Ravindra Kumar (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court held that Broad-brushing every non-disclosure as a disqualification, will be unjust and the same will tantamount to being completely oblivious to the ground realities obtaining in the great, vast and diverse country. Each case will de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (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 for review. It has been argued by the learned GP that the better view of two such views, ought to have been taken by the writ Court. We are not convinced. Such argument deserves outright rejection. The reason is that it cannot be said by us which is the better view. In fact, both the views, in our view, have been taken in the cases of Pawan Kumar (supra) and Satishchandra Yadav (supra) on consideration of the Larger Bench Judgment in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) and are by equal Strength Benches. They are in the facts and circumstance....