Pancham Lal Pandey vs. Neeraj Kumar Mishra and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (15 Feb 2023)

Provision of review is not to scrutinize the correctness of the decision but to correct the error, which is visible on face of the record

MANU/SC/0130/2023

Service

In present matter, the Government of Uttar Pradesh decided to take Sanskrit Vidyalaya and Mahavidyalaya on Grant-in-Aid List. The criteria for taking institutions under the Grant-in-Aid List was laid down in G.O. dated 07.02.2014. The State Government sanctioned five posts for payment of salary from the State Exchequer in respect of the institution.

The Director Secondary Education ignoring the statement made by the Joint Secretary before the High Court bifurcated the posts of Assistant Teachers vide order and directed that one Neeraj Kumar Mishra, who was almost five years junior to one Pancham Lal Pandey, to be paid salary.

Neeraj Kumar Mishra applied for the review in Special Appeal, whereby his Special Appeal against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge was dismissed. The Review Application has been allowed by the impugned judgment. In assailing the order, the submission of Appellant is that the Review Application was not maintainable as there was no error apparent on the face of the record in dismissing the Special Appeal filed by Neeraj Kumar Mishra and that the review has been allowed without considering his objections with regard to its maintainability.

In the review petition, the order of the Division Bench was sought to be reviewed and not of the Single Judge allowing the writ petition. The illegality, if any, pointed out in the order of the Single Judge is not material to review the decision of the Division Bench passed in Special Appeal.

The Single Judge has allowed the writ petition in the light of the statement of the Joint Secretary, Department of Secondary Education that payment of salary to teachers shall be made on the basis of seniority and therefore, the subject of teaching had no relevance. The bifurcation of the sanctioned posts of Assistant Teachers of the institution subject wise is simply an internal matter of the institution which does not put any extra burden upon the State. The institution was taken on Grant-in-Aid list with a Headmaster and four Assistant Teachers in order of seniority and thus permitting only five persons to receive salary from the Government fund is not illegal. There is no creation of any new post of Assistant Teacher at the Institution by the Court. The Writ Court, therefore, rightly allowed the writ petition and the Division Bench has not committed any error in dismissing the Special Appeal.

The provision of review is not to scrutinize the correctness of the decision rendered rather to correct the error, if any, which is visible on the face of the order/record without going into as to whether there is a possibility of another opinion different from the one expressed.

The Division Bench in allowing the review petition has dealt with the matter as it is seized of the special appeal itself and has virtually reversed the decision by taking a completely new stand for the payment of salary to teachers' subject-wise. It amounts to rehearing and rewriting the judgment in appeal without there being any error apparent on the face in the earlier order. The Division Bench thus clearly exceeded its review jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order allowing the review is unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside. Appeal allowed.

Tags : OBJECTION REVIEW PROVISION