TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 1867
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bationary Deputy Tahsildar in Guntur District. As per school records, her date of birth is 15.06.1958. The said date of birth is also entered in her Service Register. However, it is the case of the petitioner that the marriage of her parents took place on 11.05.1958 and as such she was born on 18.10.1959 and not on 15.06.1958. So, her correct date of birth is 18.10.1959. Therefore, after joining service, she has made representations on 22.02.1990 and 23.04.1990 to the concerned authority to record her date of birth as 18.10.1959 instead of 15.06.1958. The matter was referred to the Commissioner of Land Revenue, who in turn directed the District Collector on 21.01.1991 to consider the said representations of the petitioner as per Rules as the District Collector is the competent authority in this regard. The District Collector issued proceedings dated 14.09.1992 to record the date of birth of the petitioner as 18.10.1959 and directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenali to alter the date of birth of the petitioner from 15.06.1958 to 18.10.1959 as he is the custodian of the Service Register of the petitioner. Pursuant to the same, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenali, issued proce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt by an order dated 08.10.2018. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this review petition with a request to this Court to have a relook into its order dated 20.07.2018 passed in W.P.No. 16450 of 2004 and revise the same. As can be seen from the review petition, the same was filed primarily on two grounds i.e., (i) the date of birth of the petitioner was already altered as 18.10.1959 as per the orders of the District Collector, dated 14.09.1992 and (ii) in the allocation of employees between the two States, while furnishing list of employees allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh, in Annexure-I in A.P. Gazette, the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 18.10.1959 by the Government and as such the date of birth of the petitioner is to be considered as 18.10.1959 and as this gazette notification was subsequently issued on 01.01.2018 after filing the Writ Petition, the same could not be filed in the Writ Petition. Therefore, the petitioner requested to consider the said gazette notification wherein her date of birth was mentioned as 18.10.1959 and revise the order dated 20.07.2018 passed in W.P.No. 16450 of 2004 and set aside the order of the Tribunal. We have heard ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rth is shown as 15.06.1958. Therefore, the date of birth as entered in the Service Register immediately after joining service on the basis of the school records cannot subsequently be altered except to correct the clerical error. The learned Government Pleader for Services-I would further contend that except the alleged wedding invitation of the parents of the petitioner, there is absolutely no other evidence worth the name to prove that the marriage of her parents took place on 11.05.1958. He also contends that there is absolutely no legal evidence adduced by her to prove that she was actually born on 18.10.1959 and not on 15.06.1958 as entered in the school records. He finally contends that both the Tribunal and the Division Bench of the common High Court after considering these facts and probabilities and the law on the subject held against the petitioner and rejected her claim. In the end, he contends that a mere wrong entry made inadvertently in the gazette notification that her date of birth is 18.10.1959 will not confer any right on the petitioner to claim that her date of birth is 18.10.1959. He contends that probably earlier there was a wrong entry made in the Service R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....carved out to correct accidental mistakes or to prevent miscarriage of justice or to avoid abuse of process. So, the power of review would be exercised only to remove the error and not to disturb the finality. There are definitive limits to exercise the power of review. The same can be exercised on the discovery of a 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 can also be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that a 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 the appellate power which may enable an Appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the Subordinate Court. The review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except "where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial falli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he principles of natural justice, a review application can be entertained. Thus, the legal position is luculent that the scope of review is very limited and it cannot be equated with the appellate power to go into the findings of fact and the power of review must be exercised with extreme care, caution and circumspection and only in exceptional cases. Keeping in mind the above settled principles of law relating to exercise of power of review of an order passed in a Writ Petition in exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the present review preferred by the petitioner is to be considered. In the instant case, admittedly, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 15.06.1958 in her school records. Even when the petitioner entered service, her date of birth was initially recorded in the Service Register as 15.06.1958 and she has also attested the same. Now contrary to it, she contends that the said date of birth entered in the school records as 15.06.1958 and in her Service Register is not correct and her actual date of birth is 18.10.1959. However, it is significant to note that the petitioner did not adduce any legal e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er entry. He contends that the petitioner cannot take advantage of the same and seek review of the order of this Court. We find merit in the said submission of the learned Government Pleader for Services-I. A mere inadvertent wrong mention of date of birth in the gazette notification subsequently will not confer any legal right on the petitioner to claim that her date of birth is 18.10.1959. She cannot take undue advantage of the said inadvertent mistake crept in the gazette notification and seek review of the order. As rightly contended by the learned Government Pleader for Services-I probably as earlier the date of birth was corrected as 18.10.1959 as per the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer that the same was carried into the gazette notification, ignoring the correct date of birth as 15.06.1958. The petitioner has to independently prove with authenticated legal evidence that she was actually born on 18.10.1959. As she has miserably failed to substantiate the said material fact, she cannot seek the relief of correction of date of birth on surmises and hypothetical views. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of the learned cou....