IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU revxew $“no....f.l........../2009 s B @Ww ‘Egww {ansmg out ofmm 5013/2009) /Review Petitioner : Ramcharan Rathore aged about 6/ Cég X " $1 5")t x 7 Ram 50 years Rathore/Resident S/o Late Shn Budhau ofvill/Po- u‘ V m ‘9 a$éM$ M >"" ‘X‘ ......\ ‘9 Budgahan/Tah.-Ba1oda/Dism m“a Janjgeer (Champa) VERSUS MResgondents 1, State of Chhattisgarh "” Through Secretary School education department D.K.S. Bhavan Raipur DisttRaipur (C.G.) 2; District education officer Janjgeer Districtjanjgeer(Champa) CG: Revnew getmon ansmg out of order Qass on 17-09-2009 bx the Hon’ble court m w.2.(s[ 50%?2009 m which the hon’ble court at had dismissed the writ Qetition at the motion stage The Review getition resgectfully begs to submit the review petition on the basis of the facts and the grounds stated below. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVIEW PETITION N0. 79 of 2009 REVIEW PETITIONER Ramcharan Rathore. VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & another. REVIEW PETITION ARISING OUT OF ORDER PASS ON 17.9.2009 IN W.P.§S! 5073/2009 ’ Present: Shri N.K.Chatterjee, Advocate for the titioner. pe Shri A.V.S.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. (Passed on II day of November, 2009) 1. The petitioner seeks review of the order dated 17‘“ September, 2009 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5073 of 2009 (Ramcharan Rathore v. State 0f Chhattisgarh & another), on the following grounds: “A. That the petitioner who had been working as head master in the primary school and during the course of his service he was appointed as booth level officer by the order of the chief election officer India and particularly he had to work under the assistant rerning offer Janjgeer and according to the la, made under the representation of the people act 1950 according to section 13 cc. of the representation of the people act the officers and the staff employed in connection with the preparation, revision, and the correction of the electoral rolls for the conduct of all the election shall be deemed to be on deputation to the election commission for the period during which they are \12 show employed and would be subject to the control and superintendence and discipline of the election commission and therefore according to the effect of the section 13 cc ofpart-II A ofthe representation people act, the impugned transfer order would not have any effect‘ The petitioner files the copy of the relevant section and the petitioner marks it as annexure C/2. B. That in the light of section 13 cc of the representation of the people act in an identical matter the hon’ble court in wp (s) 3840/2009 had as an interim major had stayed the effect of the transfer order and the petitioner of the case for the perusal of the decision of the Identical case files the copy of the order dated 27-7-2009 passed in wp (s) SB: Honble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. ORDER ORAL “ tu ic w same decision respectfully urges before the hon’ble court that the review petition may be ordered to be admitted and pending the disposal of the review petition, an interim order may be passed in favour of the petitioner to allow him to work at the same place of posting where he has been working. And the petitioner liles the copy of the order dated 27~7-20()9 in WP(S) 3840/2009 and the petitioner marks it as annexure C/3. The petitioner also files the copy of the writ petition with annexure WP(S) 5073/2009 which is marked as annexure C/4.” The brief facts, in nutshell, are that the review petitioner/writ petitioner challenged the order dated 30th June, 2009 whereby the review petitioner, working as Head Master was transferred from Primary School, Balouda to Primary School, Harinachakar, Jaijaipur, within the district Janjgir Champa, This Court, aher having considered the writ petition from all aspects and after hearing the parties, vide order dated 17m September, 2009 came to the conclusion as under: “8. Be that as it may, it is well settled principle of law that transfer/posting of an employee is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular officer/employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter and except in the cases of proved ma/a fide, non competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. (See Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangalhan v. Damodar Prasad Pandey & Others). 9. Thus, this petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself.” The review petitioner has raised a new point in the review petition as aforestated that he was engaged in election proceedings. The ground raised herein was neither agitated nor pleaded in the original writ petition. The grounds on which the transfer order dated 30th September, 2009 was challenged in the original petition are as under: “9.1 That, the impugned order dated 30.06.2009 is arbitrary, unreasonable, unauthorized, unwarranted, illegal 3840/2009 and the petitioner by having relied upon the \kb _ m ‘ injust, and discriminatory, therefore, hit by ths postulates ofArticle 14 of the Constitution of India. 9.2 That, the impugned order is passed on the recommendation of the incharge Minister without application of mind as a punishment to the petitioner for his lawful act, without affording any opportunity of hearing. 9.3 That, the impugned order is passed without jurisdiction as the petitioner is transferred vide order dated 12.09.2008 from Government Primary School Kurma to Government Primary School Saraital, therefore again the petitioner cannot be transferred without cancelling order dated 12.09.08 from Government Primary School Kurma. 9.4 That, there is no exigency of service or administrative requirement for transferring the services of the petitioner. 9.5 That, the petitioner not allowed the illegal work of private school i.e. conducting examination in the Government school and the said school was found forged and F.I.R. was also lodged in this regard in police station Baloda, therefore complaint lodged by the Directors of the said school cannot be made ground for transfer of the petitioner. 9.6 That, the transferred place is about 100 km away from the present place of posting. 9.7 That, the impugned order dated 30.06.209 passed in violation as well as contravention of transfer policy issued by the respondent-State. 9.8 That, within one year, petitioner has been transferred from his earlier place ofposting. 9.9 That, the impugned transfer order is passed on the basis of malafide complaint.” 4. Even otherwise, on perusal of order dated 25m December, 2008 (Annexure P/3 to W.P.(S) No. 5073 of 2009), it appears that the petitioner was not engaged in the election work, but by the said order, he was asked to appear for training on 27‘“ December, 2008 and the impugned transfer order was passed after a period of six months of completion of training. Thus, the respondent-authorities are fully competent to pass the impugned transfer order and it cannot be held that the petitioner was engaged in election work. t 5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident that the petitioner has not pointed out any manifest error on record and further has not brought any new fact which could not be produced by the petitioner earlier inspite of due diligent efforts. It is a trite law that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (See S.R.Chavan v. Cement Corporation oflndia and others’ and Kanhaiya Lal Mehar v. High Cour! ofChhattisgarh2). Principle of law is well settled by several judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Meera Bhanjan v. Smt. Nirmala Kumar Choztdhary3, Lily Thomas, etc. v. Union oflndia and 0thers4, Ajit Kumar Rat/1 v. State OfOrissa and others5, Government of TN. and others v. MAnanchu Asarz‘ and others6. In the matter of Kerla State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrolhermics & Hydropower Ltd. and others7, the Supreme Court observed as under: “lO. This Court has referred to several documents on record and also considered the documentary evidence brought on record. This Court on a consideration of the evidence on record concluded that the respondent had been denied power supply by the Board in appropriate time which prevented the respondent from starting the commercial production by 3l-12-l996. This is a finding of fact recorded by this Court on the basis of appreciation of evidence produced before the Court. In a review petition it is not open to this Court to reappreeiate the evidence and reach a different conclusion, even if that is possible. Learned counsel for the Board at best sought to impress us that the correspondence exchanged between the parties did not support the conclusion reached by this Court. We are afraid such a submission cannot be permitted to be advanced in a review petition. The l (2008) 1 CGLJ 519 2 (2007) 2 CGLJ 326 3 4 AIR 1995 sc 455 5 AIR 2000 sc 1650 6 AIR 2000 sc 85 7 (2005) 2 sec 332 (2005) 6 scc 651 W/ appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the evidence domain of produced, the appellate the court court. records If on a appreciation finding of fact of and the £9 reaches a conclusion, that conclusion cannot be assailed in a review petition unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. To permit the review petitioner to argue on a question of appreciation of evidence would amount to converting a review petition into an appeal in disguise.” Applying the well settled principles of review to the facts of the case, the petitioner is seeking opportunity to argue the entire case afresh under the garb of review petition, which is not permissible and tenable in law‘ This review petition is in the nature of appeal which cannot be considered and decided by this Court. Thus, the review petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be and is Sd/- Satish K. Agnitaotri Judge accordingly dismissed.