The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed multiple review petitions challenging an earlier batch order. The Court held that the review petitioners cannot argue the matter afresh as the impugned order contains no error apparent on the face of the record.
All the Review Petitions are dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
REVP No. 23 of 2016
3. The Principal, Indira Gandhi Govt. College, Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai, Dist. Durg, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
And
REVP No. 29 Of 2016
3. The Principal, Bhanupratapdev Govt. Post Graduation College, Kanker, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Vs
2
Govt. Post Graduation College Kanker, Chhattisgarh, Civil And Revenue District Kanker, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
And
REVP No. 30 Of 2016
3. The Principal, Government Vishwanath Yadav Tamaskar Degree Swasasi College, Durg, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Vs
---- Respondent
And
REVP No. 31 Of 2016
3. The Principal, Govt. College, Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai, Dist. Durg, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Vs
3
---- Respondent
And
REVP No. 32 Of 2016
3. Principal, Govt. E.V. P G College, Korba, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Vs
---- Respondent
And
REVP No. 33 Of 2016
3. The Principal, Government Degree College, Vaishali Nagar, Bhiali, District Durg, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Vs
4
---- Respondent
And
REVP No. 34 Of 2016
3. The Principal, Bhanupratapdev Govt. Post Graduation College, Kanker, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Vs
---- Respondent
And
REVP No. 35 Of 2016
3. The Principal, Government N C J College, Dalli Rajhara, Dist. Balod, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
5
Vs
---- Respondent
And
REVP No. 56 Of 2016
3. The Principal, Mahatma Gandhi Govt. Arts & Science College, Kharsiya, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Vs
---- Respondent
And
REVP No. 36 Of 2016
3. The Principal, Govt. E.V. Post Graduate College, Korba, Chhattisgarh
6
---- Petitioner
Vs
---- Respondent
And
REVP No. 37 Of 2016
3. Principal, Govt. Indru Kewat Girls College, Kanker, (P.O. & Tah.) Dist. Kanker, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Vs
---- Respondent
And
REVP No. 38 Of 2016
3. Principal, Govt. Pataleshwar College, Masturi, Tahsil And Post Office Masturi, Bilaspur Dist. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
7
---- Petitioner
Vs
---- Respondent
And
REVP No. 26 Of 2016
3. The Principal, Govt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Post Graduation College, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Vs
---- Respondent
And
REVP No. 39 Of 2016
8
3. The Principal, Govt. J. Yoganandan Chhattisgarh College, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Vs
---- Respondent
And
REVP No. 40 Of 2016
3. Principal, Govt. Girls P G Collage, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Vs
---- Respondent
And
REVP No. 41 Of 2016
9
3. The Principal, Govt. Naveen College, Jaijaipur, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Vs
---- Respondent
For Petitioners : Shri Shashank Thakur, Govt. Advocate. For Respondents : Shri Dhani Ram Patel, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Order On Board
12/07/2016
10
present batch of writ petitions was preferred seeking similar relief for similarly placed candidates who were also appointed in the same manner in the erstwhile State of M.P. prior to 1.11.2000 and were governed under the same set of rules. When this Court allowed the writ petitions, Writ Appeal No.698/2015 and other connected writ appeals were preferred wherein permission was granted to withdraw the appeals with liberty to file review applications. Liberty was granted when the arguing counsel made a reference to some pleading of facts in the counter affidavit which according to him have not been adequately taken into consideration.
11
record in the order under review, this Court is not entitled to permit the review petitioners to argue the matter afresh once again, as held by the Supreme Court in the matters of Meera Bhanjan Vs. Smt. Nirmal Kumar Chowdhary1 , Lily Thomas etc. Vs. Union of India and others2 , Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa and others3 , Government of T.N. & Others Vs. M. Ananchu Asari and Others4 and Kerla State Electricity Board Vs. Hitech Electrothermicsm & Hydropower Ltd and Others5 .
Sd/- Judge (Prashant Kumar Mishra)
Barve
1 AIR 1995 SC 455
2 AIR 2000 SC 1650
3 AIR 2000 SC 85
4 (2005) 2 SCC 332
5 (2005) 6 SCC 651
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Review Petitioners are entitled to argue the matter afresh considering unequal treatment of candidates.
Whether the High Court ought to permit review petitions where the underlying writ petitions were fixed by precedent.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Dixit and Others Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2012 (3) MPHT 86Referred¶160
State of M.P. and another Vs. Dr. Ramesh Chandra Dixit , reported in 2013 (IV) MPJR 123Referred¶160
SLP No.6269/2012Referred¶160
Meera Bhanjan Vs. Smt. Nirmal Kumar ChowdharyReferred¶165
Lily Thomas etc. Vs. Union of India and othersReferred¶165
Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa and othersReferred¶165
Government of T.N. & Others Vs. M. Ananchu Asari and OthersReferred¶165
Kerla State Electricity Board Vs. Hitech Electrothermicsm & Hydropower Ltd and OthersReferred¶165
Various Assistants Professors and The State of Chhattisgarh
Various Assistants Professors and The State of Chhattisgarh
Prashant Kumar Mishra
Barve
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
