ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - Orissa High Court

“ The High Court held that the results which were declared in
March 1990 will relate back to the date of the examination in 1989.
This, in our opinion is an incorrect preposition of law. There can be
no question of relating back. The condition of eligibility was very
clear. It had to be five years’ service after qualifying as on 1st 47
K. CHANDRA MOHANTY -V- UNION OF INDIA [L.MOHAPATRA,J.]
January, 1995 and in this view we are supported by a decision of this
Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma and others vrs. Chander Shekhar and
Another 1997(4) SCC 18.”
Therefore, the ground taken in this regard is only reiteration of what had
been argued before the Bench when the writ applications were heard and
such point has been elaborately dealt with in the impugned judgment. The
other ground taken in course of argument is that the review petitioner having
been granted two annual increments with retrospective effect, i.e., from
3.7.1995, his case could not have been ignored by the DPC even though the
results were published after the DPC was convened. This question was
never argued before the Court when the writ applications were being heard
and therefore, there was no scope for the Court to examine this question. By
raising such a question, the review petitioner now calls upon the Court to
reconsider the issue afresh on a point which was never argued earlier. We
are afraid, in a review petition the Court cannot permit a new ground to be
taken for reconsideration of the entire issue specially when the same was
available to be argued when the writ applications were heard. The decisions
referred to earlier with regard to scope of review clearly lay down that the
power of review under Order 47, Rule 1, CPC could only be exercised for
correction of a mistake or an error which is apparent on the face of the
record. Even an illegal or erroneous finding whether on fact or law cannot
also be a ground for review. The power of review cannot be exercised for a
rehearing on fact and law to correct an erroneous decision. If there has been
an erroneous decision, the only remedy available to the party is to assail
such decision in appeal.
We are, therefore, of the view that the new ground taken by the
learned counsel for the petitioner in this review petition cannot be
considered for deciding the case afresh on merit.
7. For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in the review petition
and accordingly dismiss the same.
Review petition dismissed.