Chief Executive Officer Vs Bhupendra Anand Sinha

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:2763

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

REVP No. 115 of 2023

¶6

1 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 2 In WPS) --- Petitioner/Applicant

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - Bhupendra Anand Sinha S/o Shri Madhav Lal Sinha Aged About 36 Years R/o Teacher Colony, Ward No. 09, Girhola Road, Charama, Nagar Panchayat, Charama, Tahsil & Thana- Charama, Distt. Kanker (North Bastar) (Chhattisgarh) (Petitioner in WPS)

¶9

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Administration And Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (Respondent No. 1 in WPS/Formal Party)

¶10

--- Respondents

¶11

REVP No. 121 of 2023

¶12

1 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No.02 In WPS)

¶13

--- Petitioner/Applicant

¶14

Versus

¶15

1 - Smt. Pratima Tiwari W/o Shri Amit Tiwari Aged About 44 Years R/o Alakhdham Nagar, Mangla, Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Petitioner In WPS)

¶16

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, District Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No.01 In WPS)/ Formal Party

¶17

--- Respondents

¶18

(Cause title taken from CIS System)

¶19

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Petitioner/Applicant : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate. (REVP No. 115 of 2023) For State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, GA

¶20

¶21

Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey

Order on Board

16.01.2025

2

Since the issue involved in both these review petitions is the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶26

By both the review petitions, the petitioner/applicant is seeking review of the order dated 22.03.2023 passed in WPS No. 1467/2013 & WPS No. 1415/2013 by this Court, whereby the writ petitions filed by private respondents have been disposed of with direction to appoint the private respondents against the post of Teacher (Panchayat) Librarian as per the earlier issued merit list.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant would submit that the advertisement issued dated 07.12.2012 has wrongly mentioned for the post of Shikshak (Panchayat) Librarian, which came to the knowledge of the authorities during the selection process, the rules of the Panchayat Department Rules, 2012 and the order of the School Education Department regarding the sanctioned post with pay scale of the post of Librarian (Minimum pay) was not taken into consideration when the advertisement was issued. The sanctioned post was equivalent to the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat), Shiksha Karmi Grade-III having pay scale of Rs. 3800-100-5800, whereas the post advertised had mentioned a pay scale of Rs. 4500-125-7000, thus it could not have been possible to recruit the candidates in absence of sanctioned post. Learned counsel would further submit that the authorities had sought directions from the higher authorities since if recruitment made against wrong pay scale that would have created financial hurdles to release the monthly salary and the authorities also informed that since the post is equivalent to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III and in Zila Panchayat, Durg only have 52 sanctioned posts were available for Librarian (Min. Pay) Shiksha Karim Grade-III. The

¶28

3

¶29

present petitioner/applicant was issued an order by the Panchayat Department on 16.04.2015 directing not to do/proceed with the recruitment against the aforesaid advertised post till further orders as the advertisement issued was itself incorrect. Vide general administration meeting dated 18.02.2016 in the light of direction issued in WPS No. 3380 of 2013 order dated 06.01.2016, the Zila Panchayat passed resolution thereby cancelling the incorrect advertisement and thus, no recruitment can be made against the same, the Zila Panchayat issued a press release, whereby the cancellation of the aforesaid incorrect advertisement was informed to the general public. The Zila Panchayat, Durg had already been filed its reply in WPS No. 1415 of 2013 & WPS No. 1467 of 2013 and these subsequent developments could not be brought on record as additional reply, though the resolution regarding cancellation was through written communication was informed to the AG office. The advertisement stood cancelled on 18.02.2016 and same was informed to the general public through the press release, thus rendering the instant matters WPS No. 1415 of 2013 & WPS No. 1467 of 2013 as infructuous. The present petitioner/ applicant has provided all the necessary documents of subsequent development, which could not be presented before the Hon’ble Court due to the bona fide understanding that the letter dated 22.03.2016 would be sufficient communication. So, the impugned order dated 23.03.2023 may be recalled/modified on this ground that the advertisement was issued for recruitment to the post of Teacher (Panchayat) Librarian stood cancelled on 18.02.2016, thus rendering the WPS No. 1415 of 2013 and WPS No. 1467 of 2013 have become

¶30

4

¶31

infructuous and thus no appointment can be given to the respondents against the aforesaid posts.

¶32

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 in REVP No. 115 of 2023 supporting the order under review submits that the petitioner/applicant did not file any documents before passing impugned order and after passing impugned order, petitioner/applicant has filed these review petitions on the ground of some resolution passed in way back in 2016, it is clear that this Court passed an order on 22.03.2023 after hearing both the parties, therefore, the present review petitions seeking review of order dated 23.03.2023 is liable to be dismissed.

¶33

Learned counsel for the State supported the order passed by this Court.

¶34

It is well settled that scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and only an error apparent on face of record can be corrected in the said jurisdiction and re-appraisal/re-appreciation cannot be done in exercise of said jurisdiction as that would amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is impermissible in law as has been held in catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court, such as Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 61 , Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt) , reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170 , Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others . reported in (1996) 10 SCC 174 , Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others , reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650 , Akhilesh Yavad v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others , reported in (2013) 2 SCC 1 and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others , reported i n (2017) 4 SCC 692).

¶35

5

¶36

In the light of above judgments, in the present case petitioner/applicant himself submits that he could not file documents before passing the order impugned, thus the grounds raised by the review petitioner/applicant in both review petitions cannot be permitted to be raised in review petitions. Even otherwise, there is no error apparent on the face of record in the order under review warranting invocation of review jurisdiction. Accordingly, the review petitions are dismissed at the admission stage itself. No cost(s).

¶37

Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL Date: 2025.01.17 05:14:44 +0530

¶38

Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE

¶39

AMIT PATEL

Chief Executive Officer v. Bhupendra Anand Sinha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chief Executive Officer v. Bhupendra Anand Sinha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lavina Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Nikhil Kumar Singh

Chukeshwar Gayakwad @ Chutu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Naresh Kumar Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pavitro Kumar Dehari Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Chief Executive Officer Vs Smt. Pratima Tiwari