Mrs. Ragini Bhartari Vs Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (Formerly National Centre of Software Technology)

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SEC. 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT REVIEW PETITION REVIEWING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 3.09.2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN WRIT APPEAL NO.1584/2023.

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:53473-DB RP No. 229 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)

¶26

This review petition is directed against the judgment

¶27

dated 03.09.2024 passed by this Court in W.A.No.1584/2023, wherein this Court disposed of the writ appeal by dismissing the writ petition.

¶28

We have heard Sri Nupur Shukla, learned counsel for Smt.Kalpana, learned counsel for the review petitioner, so also perused the entire material on record.

¶29

It is the primary contention of the learned counsel for

¶30

the review petitioner that the respondent herein has obtained the impugned order by misleading the Court and by suppressing the material facts. He further contended that this Court while upholding the termination of the review petitioner has failed to assign any reason for

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:53473-DB RP No. 229 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

justification of major penalty of termination and also failed to consider whether lesser punishment could have been imposed upon the review petitioner. As such, he prays to review the impugned order.

¶34

On perusal of the impugned order passed by this Court in writ appeal, it is seen that the learned counsel for the review petitioner has argued at length on the aforesaid aspects of the matter and the same have been dealt with by this Court in detail.

¶35

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs. State Tax Officers reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1406 by referring the case of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan , 1964 SCC OnLine SC 25, held in paragraph 10 as under:

¶36

"10. It is also well-settled that a party

¶37

is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:53473-DB RP No. 229 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so."

¶41

Further, in the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court by referring Parsion Devi V. Sumitri Devi reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715 held in paragraph 11 as under:

¶42

"Under Order 47 Rule 1CPC 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 1CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1CPCit is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:53473-DB RP No. 229 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”.”

¶46

6. Applying the above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble

¶47

Apex Court to the facts and circumstances of this Case, we are of the view that there is no apparent error on the face of the record/judgment dated 03.09.2024 passed by this Court in W.A.No.1584/2023.

¶48

Accordingly, the review petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the petition, pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and the same are disposed of.

¶49

SD/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶50

SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶51

PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Mrs. Ragini Bhartari v. Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (Formerly National Centre of Software Technology)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Ragini Bhartari v. Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (Formerly National Centre of Software Technology)

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

Jyothi Vs the Divisional Controller

Channegowda Vs Singrigowda

The Divisional Controller Vs Ravi

Sri. Srikantaiah Vs Karnataka Upa Lokayukta-I

M/S Bengal Lamps Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Shivashankar Rao Vs the Managing Director