Rev. Pet. 188-190/2009 in LPA No.480/2008 Page 1 of 7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Review Pet. Nos. 188/2009, 189/2009 & 190/2009 in LPA No. 480/2008 DATADEEN ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja, Advocate. versus LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Renuka Arora, Adv. for R-2/Directorate of Education. Dr. Sarbjit Sharma, Adv. for R-3/Review Petitioner. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL O R D E R % 04.05.2009 1. The present review petitions have been filed for review of orders dated 18.12.2008, 12.01.2009 and 24.02.2009. The appeal was disposed of on 12.01.2009. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that the appellant had filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to promote him to the post of Laboratory Assistant with retrospective effect and to pay him arrears of pay with interest. The appellant had joined respondent No. 3 school as a Peon on 1st May, 1977. He was confirmed to the post of Peon with retrospective effect from 1.5.1979. The appellant, at the time he joined as a Peon with respondent No. 3, was a matriculate. He claimed that he was entitled to be promoted to the post of Laboratory Assistant with effect from 1.5.1980, in view of the Circular issued by Respondent No. 2 (Directorate of Education) dated 17.12.1979 followed by subsequent Rev. Pet. 188-190/2009 in LPA No.480/2008 Page 2 of 7 Circular dated 24.5.2007. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground of delay as also on the ground that the appellant could not claim promotion to the post of Laboratory Assistant as a matter of right and at best he could ask for his consideration for promotion to the said post. 3. In the present appeal, the Directorate of Education produced a short note in Court on 25.11.2008. The material portion of the note is reproduced hereinbelow: “3. That the petitioner was issued certificate in the year 1969 for clearing High School Exam which is equivalent for 10th Class. As per the Recruitment Rules, the Appellant was requisite qualification i.e. Matriculation (10th Pass) with Science with practical and is in regular service of the Respondent No.1 hence, he is eligible for the post of Lab Assistant as per the Recruitment Rules for promotion of Regular Group-D Employees. The respondent may in addition allow the appellant to undergo a three months orientation course in Science as is conducted by the Directorate of Education for such students who completed their education way back in the year 1969 as the pattern of studies was different from what is prevalent as one date.” 4. In the light of the clarification given by the Directorate of Education, the counsel for respondent no. 3 stated that the school management was prepared to consider the appellant against the vacant post of a Lab Assistant and pass an appropriate order within a period of two weeks. 5. Thereafter when the matter came up for hearing on 12.1.2009, counsel for respondent No. 3 stated that in terms of order dated 24.11.2008, the school administration had considered the case of the appellant for promotion to the post of Lab Assistant and taken a decision to promote him with effect from 1.2.2009 subject to the condition that he will undergo the three months orientation course in Rev. Pet. 188-190/2009 in LPA No.480/2008 Page 3 of 7 Science conducted by the Directorate of Education. The appeal was disposed of on the said date. 6. Thereafter an application was filed by the Directorate of Education for clarification of order dated 12.1.2009 stating, inter alia, that the appellant was not required to undergo orientation course in Science for appointment as Laboratory Assistant in view of the recruitment rules. The said application was listed on 24.2.2009. In view of the averments made in the application by the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi, this court came to the conclusion that the appellant was not required to undergo the three months orientation course in Science. This court was of the view that admittedly the appellant satisfied the eligibility requirement stipulated in the recruitment rules and once the eligibility requirement is satisfied no further direction was required to be issued. In view of the clear stand taken by the Directorate of Education and also the fact that the appellant had been working in the laboratory for the last twenty years, the application was allowed and it was clarified that the appellant would not be required to undergo three months orientation course in science conducted by the Directorate of Education. The application was accordingly disposed of. Even on 24.02.2009 the only objection taken by respondent No.3 was that the appellant should be asked to undergo an orientation course even if the training was not mandatory. It was not their case that the appellant could not be appointed to the post of Lab. Assistant. 7. The present review applications have been filed asking for Rev. Pet. 188-190/2009 in LPA No.480/2008 Page 4 of 7 review of the orders dated 18.12.2008, 12.1.2009 and 24.2.2009. The ground for review now taken is that the counsel who appeared for respondent no. 3 was never instructed by respondent no. 3 to make any statement to the effect that the school management was prepared to consider the appellant against the vacant post of a Lab Assistant. As per the respondents, even the allotment letter was issued under the apprehension of initiation of contempt proceeding. We find no merit in these submissions of the respondent. The review petition is liable to be rejected. 8. First of all review is only sought of the orders dated 18.12.2008, 12.1.2009 and 24.2.2009. It is pertinent to mention here that on 25.11.2008, the counsel for respondent no. 3 made a statement before the court that they were prepared to consider the appellant against the vacant post of Lab Assistant and pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks. On 18.12.2008, when the counsel for the appellant pointed out that the order had not been complied by respondent no. 3, this court simply directed the Chairman of respondent no. 3 to appear in Court and also directed respondent no. 3 to abide by the statement of its counsel to this Court on 25.11.2008. Thereafter on 12.1.2009, a categorical statement was made on behalf of respondent no. 3 that in terms of order dated 25.11.2008, the respondent no. 3 had taken a decision to promote the appellant to the post of Lab Assistant. Thereafter even on 24.2.2009, the only contention urged on behalf of respondent no. 3 was that the appellant should be asked to undergo an orientation course in science even if the said training was not mandatory. No Rev. Pet. 188-190/2009 in LPA No.480/2008 Page 5 of 7 review of order dated 25.11.2008 has been sought, though even if it had been sought, the same would have made no difference to the outcome of the present review petitions. 9. It is pertinent to mention here that right from 25.11.2008 to 24.2.2009, the matter was listed on six different dates before this Court. On none of the said dates, was it ever urged that the counsel for respondent no. 3 had no authority to make the statement on its behalf on 25.11.2008 or thereafter on subsequent dates. Clearly this averment in the review petition is an afterthought. The respondent no. 3 are bound by the statement made by their counsel and cannot wriggle out of the same. 10. The scope of interference in an application for review is very limited. There is no glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error in any of the orders. There is no error apparent on the face of the record in the order, review of which is sought. A party cannot be allowed to resile from the statements made on its behalf by its counsel in such a casual manner. The story now set up is completely unbelievable. On repeated dates, the matter was listed and from time to time statements have been made on behalf of respondent no. 3. It is impermissible for respondent no. 3 to now turn around and attempt to resile from the statements so made on its behalf by the counsel. If such a practice is permitted, it would seriously impede administration of justice and there would be no sanctity attached to the statements and submissions made by a counsel on behalf of a party. 11. It is not the case of respondent no. 3 that the counsel who Rev. Pet. 188-190/2009 in LPA No.480/2008 Page 6 of 7 appeared on their behalf had no authority to appear on their behalf or had not been engaged as their counsel. That being the position, the story, as set out now in the review petition, cannot be accepted. Review petition has to be entertained only on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record and not on any other ground. No such ground for interference has been made out in the present review petition. The only ground in the present petition is that the counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3 made a statement on 25.11.2008 without seeking instructions and the said order was never communicated to respondent no. 3 till 9.1.2009. This cannot be a ground for review. Moreover, respondent no. 3 is bound by the statement made by its counsel. As held by the Supreme Court in BSNL & Ors. vs. Subhash Chandra Kanchan, (2006) 8 SCC 279 that in terms of Order III rule 1 of CPC a litigant is represented by an Advocate. A concession made by such an advocate is binding on the party whom he represents. If it is binding on the party, again subject to just exceptions, they cannot at a later stage resile therefrom. The matter may, however, be different if a concession is made on a question of law. A wrong concession on legal question may not be binding upon his client. 12. However, in the present case, the respondent is seeking to resile from statements made by their counsel on different dates of hearing. This does not fall in the category of just exceptions. The matter was listed on six different dates between 25.11.2008 and 24.2.2009. On none of the dates, was it ever urged that the counsel for respondent no. 3 had no authority to make the statement on its Rev. Pet. 188-190/2009 in LPA No.480/2008 Page 7 of 7 behalf on 25.11.2008 or thereafter on subsequent dates. Clearly the story which is now attempted to be put up in the review petitions is a clear afterthought and an attempt to resile from the statement/concession made by the counsel for respondent no. 3 in the Court. This cannot be permitted. 13. The review petitions must accordingly fail and are liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the review petitions are dismissed. All pending applications are also disposed of accordingly. CHIEF JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J May 04, 2009 Rb/RS