1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO. 3 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.107 OF 2002. Smt. Nikita Baadkar, Major in age, R/o H.No.H/2/2, Government Quarters, Bhatulem, Panaji-Goa. ... Applicant. Versus 1. State of Goa through its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Panaji-Goa. 2. Speaker, Goa Legislative Assembly, Assembly Complex, Porvorim-Goa. 3. Deputy Speaker, Goa Legislative Assembly, Assembly Complex, Porvorim-Goa. 4. Secretary, Goa Legislature Secretariat, Assembly Complex, Porvorim-Goa. 5. Shri Hercules Francis Noronha, Goa Legislature Secretariat, Assembly Complex, Porvorim-Goa. ... Respondents Mr. V. A. Lawande, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S. Vahidulla, Government Advocate for respondent no.1. 2 Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr. H. D. Naik, Advocate for respondent nos.2 to 4. Mr. M.S. Sonak with Mr. J. Supekar, Advocates for respondent no.5. Coram:- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 17 th March, 2011. ORAL ORDER Heard Mr. Lawande appearing on behalf of the Applicant- Original Petitioner, Mr. Nadkarni appearing for the contesting respondent nos.2 to 4 and Mr. Sonak appearing for contesting respondent no.5. 2. This review application seeks review of the Judgment and Order of the Division Bench dated 5.12.2009 in the instant Writ Petition. 3. Mr. Lawande in support of this application, firstly urged that the Division Bench ought not to have taken the Affidavit in reply of the respondent no.5 on record, which reply affidavit is dated 4.12.2009, since the petitioner was not given any opportunity to place a rejoinder affidavit or argue in rejoinder. In such circumstances, by placing reliance on the 3 affidavit filed on 4.12.2009 and denying an opportunity to the petitioner to be heard in rejoinder, there is an error apparent on the face of the record and therefore, the said Judgment be reviewed. 4. It is then contended by Mr. Lawande that the Division Bench has proceeded on the basis that the petitioner has suppressed from this Court the fact of a representation having been made and which came to be rejected by memo dated 3.4.2002. In the submission of Mr. Lawande a representation was made on 21.3.2002. The Writ Petition was filed on 27.3.2002 and the representation came to be rejected on 3.4.2002. If it was rejected subsequent to the institution of the Writ Petition, there is no question of any suppression in the Writ Petition. Thus, the very basis of the Judgment is erroneous and the Order needs to be reviewed. 5. Lastly, Mr. Lawande submitted that the Court also proceeds on the basis that the Recruitment Rules of 1988 provided only two modes of recruitments, namely by promotion and direct recruitment. 6. Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the view that each of the grounds argued in support of the review 4 application cannot be accepted in law. The Supreme Court has time and again clarified that an error apparent on the face of the record means an error on the face of the Order and the correction of which does not require process either known as Appellate or Revisional jurisdiction. The error must be apparent on the face of the Judgment or Order. Such is not the case in this matter. If indeed, the matter was part heard or whether the petitioner was served with the copy of the rejoinder affidavit by respondent no.5 or whether such an affidavit needs to be served on the petitioner, is a matter which will require this Court to go behind the Judgment and Order in review jurisdiction. It is not permissible if the Order is reviewed in this manner. If the grievance of the petitioner is that he was denied fair opportunity of being heard or he is prejudiced because he could not make any submissions on the contents of the Rejoinder Affidavit are matters which cannot be considered unless the record of the case is completely scrutinized because there is no reference to it in the Judgment of this Court. The grievance now made does not appear to have been made earlier. The petitioner calls upon this Bench to verify from the record all details, which cannot be done. The remedy open to the petitioner is to challenge the impugned Judgment in appeal before a higher Court. 5 7. A perusal of the Judgment under review which decides the controversy by going into several aspects would demonstrate that it would not be possible to accept the second ground either. Mr. Lawande calls upon this Bench to undertake an exercise which would require us to find out whether the Division Bench committed an error in accepting an Affidavit dated 4th October, 2009 and not giving an opportunity to the petitioner to be heard in rejoinder. The contention is this affidavit is taken on record and thereafter the Judgment was pronounced on 5th October, 2009. However, there were other materials which are referred by the Division Bench and it does not prima facie appear that this affidavit is the only document based on which the conclusion rests. In such circumstances even the second ground does not enable us to exercise review jurisdiction. 8. The aspect of the Recruitment Rules of 1988 being suppressed is a matter touching the merits and involves interpretation of the rules. The Division Bench has not only referred to the facts but has elaborately gone into the submissions of the petitioner about the interpretation of the Recruitments Rules. Merely because the Division Bench has observed that the issuance of notification by the State was a 6 mistake which needs to be corrected does not mean that it was inclined to accept the petitioner's version. The Judgment must be read as a whole and not in parts. The Division Bench proceeded to analyse the Recruitment Rules in the field and placed an interpretation with which the petitioner may not agree. However, that would not enable us to exercise our review jurisdiction. Under these circumstances, the third ground must also fail. 9. The reliance placed by Mr. Lawande on the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court setting out the purpose and object of review jurisdiction is not enough to allow this petition. The Judgment lays down the settled principles of law. The Judgment in Shivdeo Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others reported in AIR 1963 SC 1909 pertains to inherent power of High Court to review its order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That such review is available and is within the purview of the jurisdiction of this Court is not in dispute. The ambit and scope of the powers of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction but the exercise of which is permissible by applying the principles enshrined in Section 114 r/w Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. Such principles have been applied while deciding a review application to recall 7 the Judgment given under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The next Judgment relied upon by Mr. Lawande is Rajender Singh v. Lt. Governor, Andaman & Nicobar Islands and others((2005) 13 SCC 289) wherein once again it is noted that the error apparent on the face of the record in that decision ought to have been corrected by the High Court and an Order rejecting the review was erroneous. There it was not necessary to undertake an elaborate process as in the instant case. Reliance placed on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in S. Nagaraj and others v. State of Karnataka and another(1993 Supp (4) SCC 595) is not apposite. Once again the ambit and scope of review jurisdiction is settled but the facts must permit the Court to exercise it. That depends on circumstances in each case. Once we find that there is no such case made out in the present matter, we cannot exercise our review jurisdiction. 10. In the result, the review application fails and it is accordingly dismissed. S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. F. M. REIS, J. ef