Ayan Chaudhury Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ayan Chaudhury Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 4th January, 2024 in WP.ST 197 of 2023 contains an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review, specifically the alleged erroneous observation that the 2010 Rules have no manner of application despite Rule 11 thereof. +2 more

Court's answer

The grounds of review do not establish any error whatsoever on the face of the record.

Ratio / Principle

Matters which ought to have been urged in course of the appeal cannot be agitated afresh through a review petition.

Key takeaways

The application for review had not been preferred upon discovery of any new or important piece of evidence.ratio¶16
No interference is called for; the review application RVW 48 of 2024 and the connected application IA No.CAN 1 of 2024 are dismissed.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review dismissed — no error apparent on the face of the record; matters urgeable in appeal cannot be re-agitated through review. Ayan Chaudhury, writ petitioner in WP.ST 197 of 2023, sought review (RVW 48 of 2024, with IA No.CAN 1 of 2024) of the order dated 4th January, 2024 dismissing his writ petition, pleading (i) an error apparent on the face of the record in the observation that the 2010 Rules have no manner of application notwithstanding Rule 11 thereof, and (ii) that, his option for appointment and posting in Burdwan having been accepted, his transfer to Darjeeling was without jurisdiction. The State contended there was no patent error, that review does not postulate a rehearing for aspects not earlier highlighted, and that clause 4 of Advertisement No.4 of 2008 concerned appointment, not transferability. Holding that matters which ought to have been urged in appeal cannot be agitated afresh in review, that the grounds established neither error on the face of the record nor discovery of new or important evidence, the bench dismissed the review application and the connected application, with no order as to costs.

02.01.2025 Item No.14 Court No.11 Avijit Mitra

RVW 48 of 2024 with IA No.CAN 1 of 2024 in WP.ST 197 of 2023

Ayan Chaudhury - Versus - State of West Bengal & ors.

Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv., Ms. Pampa Dey (Dhabal), Mr. Biswaroop Chatterjee

…for the writ petitioner/applicant

Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, Ld. A.G.P., Mr. Pinaki Dhole, Ms. Tapati Samanta

….for the State respondents

Affidavit-of-service, as filed, be kept on record.

Aggrieved by the order dated 4^th January, 2024 passed in WP.ST 197 of 2023, the writ petitioner/applicant has preferred the review application being RVW 48 of 2024 along with an application for appropriate order being IA No.CAN 1 of 2024.

Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior advocate appearing for the applicant herein submits that there is an error apparent on the face of the record as the Hon’ble Court while dismissing the writ petition erroneously observed that the 2010 Rules have no manner of application though Rule 11 of the said rules clearly specifies that in cases where the process for appointment has been started prior to coming into force of the said Rules, the persons

2

appointed would be guided by the provisions of the said Rules.

According to him, having accepted the applicant’s option for appointment and posting in the district of Burdwan, the authorities had no jurisdiction to transfer him to the district of Darjeeling.

Mr. Mukherjee, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State denies and disputes the contention of Mr. Bhattacharya and submits that there is no patent error on the face of the records and the parameters prescribed for review do not postulate a rehearing of the dispute because a party has not highlighted all the aspects of the case. The Hon’ble Court rightly dismissed the writ petition observing that the provision of clause 4 of the advertisement being No.4 of 2008 was as regards appointment and not transferability.

We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record.

It is well settled that matters which ought to have been urged in course of the appeal cannot be agitated afresh through a review petition. The grounds of review, in our opinion, do not establish any error whatsoever on the face of the record nor the application for review had been preferred upon discovery of any new or important piece of evidence.

3

In view thereof, no interference is called for and the review application being RVW 48 of 2024 as well as the connected application being IA No.CAN 1 of 2024 is, accordingly, dismissed.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee,J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty J.)