Sri Arun Chandra Saikia Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

1 . Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioner assisted by Mr. K. Biswakarma, learned counsel, who submits that the impugned order dated 04.04.2025 passed in WP(C) 5042/2018 should be reviewed, inasmuch as, the earlier learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner prior to disposal of the writ petition, had not annexed a copy of the orders dated 17.07.1987 and 14.10.1987 issued by the District Elementary Education Officer, Sivasagar in the writ petition.

¶27

2 . The review petitioner’s counsel submits that if the above two orders had been a part of the writ petition, the same would have shown that the review petitioner had been appointed as a temporary Office Peon in 1976 and was appointed as permanent Lower Grade Assistant-cum-Typist in 1987. He also submits that the service of the review petitioner as a Lower Grade Assistant was made permanent w.e.f. 19.10.1987 on completion of 3 months service as Lower Grade Assistant. Further, if the review petitioner’s date of birth was taken as 31.07.1958 and not 01.12.1967, the review petitioner would have been overage, i.e. beyond the upper age limit for appointment to a Government post.

¶28

Page No.# 3/9

¶29

3 . The translated copy of the order dated 17.07.1987 and 14.10.1987 which has been brought to the notice of this Court for the first time by way of this review petition states as follows:

¶30

Order dated 17.07.1987

¶31

“ORDER

¶32

In order to regularize and to remove, at any time, without any notice as well as without citing any reason thereto by getting selected in any selection examination in future, after passing the High School leaving Certificate (HSLC) examination, the 4th grade employee at the Office of the Sub-Inspector of Schools, Charaideo, namely Sri Arun Chandra Saikia is hereby recruited at the office of Sub-Inspector of School, Charaideo, temporarily for 3 (three) months as a Lower Grade Asstt. Cum-Typist in a vacant post of Lower Grade Asstt. due to the promotion of Sri Nabin Chandra Raj Konwar in the Scale of by of Rs.470/12.00-590..00/- 15.00-680.00/-20/- 800.00 per month plus other allowances as admissible.

¶33

Order dated 14.10.1987

¶34

“ORDER

¶35

As per Memo No.E.A.S./1/87/10068-72 dated 17.07.87 of the below signed office, due to the completion of the Order for 3 (three) months service of Sri Arun Saikia as the Lower Grade Asstt. at the office of Sub- Inspector of Schools, Charaideo, his service has been made permanent w.e.f. 19.10.87.

¶36

The instant order is hereby issued to commence with immediate effect”

¶37

It is interesting to note that while the review petitioner has referred to the order dated 14.10.1987, a perusal of the translated copy of the order shows that it is dated 15.10.1987, at the bottom of the order.

¶38

4 . The order dated 17.07.1987 has mentioned the petitioner to be a 4^th

¶39

Page No.# 4/9

¶40

Grade employee in the office of the Sub-Inspector of Schools, Charaideo and that he has been appointed in the vacant post of Lower Grade Assistant-cumTypist. Though the review petitioner’s stand in the present review petition is that he was only a minor peon/office boy, who was not working as a 4^th grade employee, the fact that the petitioner was in Government service at the age of 9, is proved by the order dated 17.07.1987 which has been annexed in the review petition and which was never a part of the writ petition.

¶41

5 . Paragraph-4, 5, & 6 of the writ petition clearly shows that the petitioner had been engaged on 15.11.1976 as a Office Peon and he was transferred on 04.10.1983, inasmuch as, the said paragraph-4, 5, & 6 states as follows :

¶42

“4. That the petitioner begs to state that he was engaged by the respondent authority on 15/11/1976 as Office Peon / Office Boy in the Office of the Sub Inspector of Schools Ghograper Circle, under Nalbari District. During his service period he was transferred to the Office of the Deputy Inspector of Schools Charaideo vide order dated 04/10/1983.

¶43

That the petitioner begs to state that during his service period, with an approval of the authority concern, the petitioner appeared in High School Leaving Certificate Examination on 1986 and he passed (Compartmental) examination on 1986. As per his HSLC admit card his date of birth has been recorded as 01/12/1967.

¶44

True Copy of HSLC examinations admit card is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure 1. True Copy of HSLC pass certificate is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure 2.

¶45

That the petitioner was promoted to the post of Lower Division Assistant vide order dated 01/08/1987 and again he promoted to the post of Sr Assistant vide order dated 08/02/2008 and presently he is working in the Officer of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Charaideo in the same capacity.”

¶46

Page No.# 5/9

¶47

A reading of the paragraphs 4, 5 & 6 of the writ petition would thus show that the petitioner was transferred on 04.10.1983,when he was approximately 2 months shy of his 16^th birthday. Whether a minor boy who is working as a temporary peon/office boy, can be transferred, is also very unlikely. Further, if the petitioner’s service was regularized vide order dated 17.07.1987 and was promoted on 01/08/1987 as Lower Division assistant, at the age of 19 years, the same could have been done only by counting the petitioner’s years of service as a minor, as qualifying years of service for promotion.

¶48

6 . The review petitioner has produced the new order dated 14.10.1987 (15.10.1987) by way of this review petition and has stated that this was the most vital document showing that the service of the petitioner had been made permanent w.e.f. 19.10.1987 as Lower Grade Assistant, which was not a part of the writ petition. As stated earlier, paragraph-6 of the writ petition states that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Lower Division Assistant on 01.10.1987. This discrepancy has also not been explained by the petitioner when looking into the two new documents dated 17.07.1987 and 14.10.1987 being produced by way of this review petition. The above gives rise an inference that the petitioner has been manufacturing documents.

¶49

7 . The petitioner has not made any mention of the order dated 17.07.1987 in the writ petition and the said order has seen the light of day for the first time in this review petition. Similarly, the petitioner has not made any mention of the order dated 14.10.1987 in the writ petition and as such, there is nothing to show that the said two documents are genuine. Further, when perusing the

¶50

Page No.# 6/9

¶51

Service Book of the petitioner which is annexed to the writ petition, it is seen that there is no mention of the order dated 17.07.1987 and 14.10.1987, which has been now sought to be the basis of the petitioner’s claim, that the petitioner was appointed to a Government post for the first time on 17.07.1987 and made permanent vide the subsequent order dated 14.10.1987.

¶52

8 . The review petitioner’s counsel submits that in the Service Book of the petitioner, the service period of the petitioner w.e.f. 15.11.1976 to 01.12.1985 is to be treated as boys service as per the Government letter dated 10.05.2018. This is seen in page-22 of the writ petition. However, the petitioner’s case is that he was born on 01.12.1967 and that he was engaged as an Office Peon/Office Boy on 15.11.1976. The Government letter dated 10.05.2018 which allegedly states the service of the petitioner from 15.11.1976 to 01.12.1985 was to be treated as boys service has not been produced. It is interesting to note that the Service Book of the petitioner which is at page-22 of the writ petition, carries the signature of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Charaideo dated 29.05.2019 and speaks of a Government letter dated 10.05.2018 which is not produced by the petitioner. It is also interesting to note that the bottom half of the Service Book of the petitioner, which is at page-22 of the writ petition, carries signatures signed in the year 1984 to 1986, except for the top portion of the same page of the Service Book, which allegedly has been signed on 29.05.2018. All the above facts give rise to an inference that some of the contents of the concerned page of the Service Book are fabricated.

¶53

9 . The noting in the top half of the Service Book, which states that the service period of the petitioner w.e.f. 15.11.1976 to 01.12.1985 is to be treated

¶54

Page No.# 7/9

¶55

as boys service as per Government letter dated 10.05.2018, which is at page 22 of the writ petition, is reproduced herein below as follows:-

¶56

“The service period of Shri Arun Ch. Saikia with effect from 15-11-76 to 01-12-1985 treated as boy Service as per Govt letter No. JEE.285/2014/Pt/37-A dtd. 10-05-2018. Sd/-

¶57

29-05-2018

¶58

Deputy Inspector of Schools,

¶59

Charaideo, Sonari”

¶60

As stated earlier, the notings made subsequent to the above extract all pertain to the year 1984 to 1986.

¶61

10 . A perusal of the above noting in the petitioner’s Service Book is clearly untenable and cannot be accepted to be valid, as it is unthinkable for the Government to allow a minor 9 year old boy to work for the Government, prior to attaining the age of majority.

¶62

11 . In the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma , reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389 , the Supreme Court has held that though the Constitution Bench held in Shivdeo Singh vs. State of Punjab , reported in AIR 1963 SC 1909 that nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution precludes a High Court from exercising the power of review, which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or

¶63

Page No.# 8/9

¶64

could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a Court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate powers, which may enable an appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate Court.

¶65

12 . In the case of Parsion Devi vs. Sumitri Devi , reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715 , the Supreme Court has held at paragraph-9 is reproduced herein below :

¶66

“9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise".

¶67

13 . On considering the orders dated 17.07.1987 and 14.10.1987 which have been submitted to this Court for the first time, by way of this review petition, this Court is of the view that the same does not change the fact that the petitioner could not have been born on 01.12.1967, or else he would have been only 9 years of age at the time of entry into Government service and would have been transferred at the age of 15 years on 04.10.1983, to the office of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Charaideo. This Court also finds that there is no

¶68

Page No.# 9/9

¶69

error or mistake apparent on the face of record and in fact the two new orders that have been brought to the notice of this Court by way of this review petition, only reinforces the fact that the petitioner was considered to be a Grade-IV employee, when he was engaged as a office peon in the year 1976.

¶70

14 . In view of the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any case for review of the impugned order dated 04.04.2025.

¶71

15 . The review petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶72

JUDGE

¶73

Comparing Assistant

Sri Arun Chandra Saikia v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Arun Chandra Saikia v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

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

Siddheswari Deb Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Nur Hussain Sk and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

M/S Modern Printers and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Sandeep Hazarika Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Ram Chandra Sarkar Vs the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Another

M/S Dritu Enterprise Vs the State of Assam and 2 Others