Civil Revision No.3311 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.3311 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 2, 2011 B.N.Khalsa Sr.Secondary School and others .....Petitioners v. Manjit Kaur .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Tarunveer Vashist, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.Nos.13134-35-CII of 2011 Requests for placing on record Annexures P-1 to P-8. The same are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Both the applications stand disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.18283-CII of 2011 Requests for placing on record Annexure P-9. The same is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Civil Revision No.3311 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against order dated 9.3.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Patiala, in an execution petition filed by respondent-decree holder against petitioners-judgment debtors. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by Civil Revision No.3311 of 2011(O&M) -2- learned Executing Court. Admitted facts are that a suit for declaration that order dated 2.8.2003 passed by present petitioners removing respondent-plaintiff from the post of Social Study Teacher and terminating her services w.e.f. 2.8.2003 from the said post is illegal, null and void with consequential relief. The suit was contested by present petitioners-defendants. However, the same was decreed by learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 12.10.2007, Annexure P1, operative part of which reads as under:- “13. In view of the above discussion while disposing off he above said issues, the suit of the plaintiff stands decreed and order dated 2.8.2003 are hereby set aside and plaintiff is deemed to be in service of the defendant-School and she be reinstated in the school with back wages and arrears of her salary lastly drawn by her be paid to her within the period of three months alongwith interest @ 6% per annum being reasonable from the date of decision. However, defendant is at liberty to pass any fresh order against the plaintiff qua her alleged misconduct after following principles of natural justice affording her opportunity of being heard and the department is directed to complete the said process if initiated within six months from the date of decision. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room.” Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree by the present petitioners was got dismissed as withdrawn vide order Annexure P5, Civil Revision No.3311 of 2011(O&M) -3- on the ground that as Management Committee has passed another speaking order terminating the services of Manjit Kaur, the present appeal was being withdrawn. Respondent-decree holder filed the present execution petition by taking the plea that the decree was not complied with and rather without permitting her to join the services, without paying her back wages, without serving any charge-sheet upon her and without holding any fresh enquiry, her services have been again terminated. Learned trial Court dismissed the objections filed by petitioners-judgment debtors and directed them to comply with the judgment and decree vide impugned order and also ordered for issuance of warrants of attachment of petitioners-judgment debtors' property. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners- judgment debtors that another suit was also filed by respondent-decree holder, which was decided against her vide judgment dated 18.4.2006 and the appeal against the same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 13.8.2009. However, perusal of said judgments shows that in the said suit respondent-decree holder had claimed relief of regularisation of her services on the post of Social Study Teacher and for grant of regular pay scale, which was not acceded to by the Court. The present decree passed in favour of respondent-decree holder, as reproduced above, is for directing petitioners- judgment debtors to reinstate her in the school with back wages and pay arrears of salary last drawn by her within three months alongwith interest. However, admittedly, the said part of the decree has not been complied with. Respondent-decree holder was not allowed to join her services, as per Civil Revision No.3311 of 2011(O&M) -4- judgment and decree and rather another order was passed terminating her services again just within few days of her giving application for permitting her to join the services, as per judgment and decree. She gave application on 20.12.2007 and another order was passed on 26.12.2007. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Executing Court in passing the impugned order or that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2003(6) SCC 675 : AIR 2003 SC 3044: 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147, that supervisory jurisdiction is not available to be exercised for indulging in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the errors for drawing inference like a Court of appeal. It has been observed as under:- “Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied : (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.” Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 2.8.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge