IN THE HON'BLE HIGhLCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C REVIEWPETITION No. ^4 /2011 APPLICANT (Petitioner in Writ Petition) ^ AtaharAli Khan (te|li Bcnch P.-'-"Z(^^ ^^%^ ^••--'"" S/o Late S.A. Khan, Aged about 55 years, LegalInspector, South Eastern Coal Fields Limited, Bilaspur, R/o B-168, Vasant Vihar, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS NON-APPLICANTS/RESPONDENTS- ^( Respondents in Writ Petition) 1) Chairman, Coal India Ltd. 10 Netaji Subhas Road , Kotkata (WB) 700 001 2) Director (Personnel), Coal India Ltd. 10 Netaji Subhas Road , Kolkata (WB) 700 001 3) Chairman-cum-Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 495006 4) Director (Personnel), South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 495006 5J. ShriN.V. Daniel , Head of Department, Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. P.0. Jagaruti Vihar,Burla District - Sambalpur (Orissa) APPLICATION FOR REVIEW IINDER RULE 90 OF THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTT^ARH RULES 2007. READ WTTH ORDER XI VTI RULE 1 OF THE CQDE_QF_CIVTL PROCEDIIRE DATED 08^09^2010 PASSED IN \^ W.P.No.4178/1998. HTOH COIJRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BTTASPim APPLICANT REVIEW PETiriON No. 64 of201 1 : Atahar Ali Khan* Petitioner in Writ Petition VER8IJ8 NON-APPLICANTS : Cha.irma.iL Coal fadia. Ltd. & Othera. Respondeiils ia Wrii Pelitioii APPTJCATION FOR RRVIRW IJNDRR RUT,E 90 OF THR HTOH COXJRT OF CIHIATnSGARII RULES. 2007 READ WITII ORDER XIMI RULE 1 OF THR CODR OF C1VTT, PROCRDI JRR DATRD 08.09.2010 PA88RD mW.PNo. 4178/1998 SB: Hon'We Sliri Satish K. Aenthotri, J. Pres^iit: Shri Mateeii Siddiqiie. Advocate for the applioaiit. ORDER(€)RAI,> (P^sed on 06 day ofSeptember, 2011) 1. The applicaat seeks review ofthe order 08.09<2010 (Amwxiire A//l) passed in W.P. No. 4178/1998 (AtaharAU Khen v. Ckairmm, Coal India LimMed & Others\ maMy osi ^ie Ef<xmd Aat the? direction ofthe Hon'ble Hi^i Court afMadhya Practesh m W.P.(S) No. 4624/2004, vide order dated 19.03.2Q09, one similariy sitiiated employee namely Shri A.K.Shiskla was givesi promotion OB tfa^ pOB't ofE-2 ex^cirtive gra.de. 2.' Th^ brief fa.ct.s^ m mrtshdl are^ the review petitiosier qiiasfamg ofthe ordter dated 11.06J995 (Aimexiiire P/2 to tiie writ p^tition) in respect. of promotioa graated to the respondent No, 5 therein and to promote the review petitioisw as Law Officar w^JC 13.06J996 alongwith finaiicial and otfaer oons€?qiiCTrtiaIb^aefite. Tbis C'oiirt, a.fter ha.vmg coBBidered tte writ petitiosi from all a.sp0cts and faearmg ihc parties^ vide order dated 08,09.2010. came to tfie cosidiisioii as imder: '«|Si^ 6 <"16. Applying the -ratio laid dowi by t.he Siipresiie- Court iti tiie above stated cases, the priiicipl^ oflaw m well ^ettled that. ao direotioti can be issued lo. Ihe regpoiidenl-^mployer lo appomt the pet.itioner from th©sel^ct list. validity of llie saiixe was ov@r. SecoBdIy^ Ihe pet.itioHCT camiot olaim parfty with the respotident No. 5 as he was seleeted tlu'oii^i mode of selectioa fbr direot recmittoait quota." 3. 'Tfae sole groimd for seekmg review ofthe order dated 08.09»20IO is th@ High Court -of Madhya Pra<teBh, in aii idaitieal imitter i^ A.K.Shiikla v. Coal India & Others1, vide order dated 19.03.2009, exteoded tfae befiefit of$)romotioii a^ wetl as of^otional isesiiority msd^ all consequential benefite from retrospective effbct aad tlie revtew petitioner herein seeks a. review on tlie same lisw^. Atthoii^ ttie review petitioner in para U ofhisi plea-dmgs, m dear a.iid categoriCT-l' teniis has avemd that a-ggrieved by the ord@r dated 08.09.2010 passed m W.P No« 4178 1998^ th@ a-pplioant ha.d preferred •a writ appeal before this Hon'ble Court being W.P. No. 71/2011, whioh was subseqveintly wit-hdrawss by order dated 02.05,2011 by-tte a.pplicaiit with liberty to fite a review application and tfae same fmds m. para 2.8 and 2.10 ofthe grounds ofthe review petition. The law with regard to maiirtaiiiaNlity of review petitiois and of fliis Covrt-5 m so far a.s review jimsdietion Biider Ordw 47 Rule 1 ofttie C.P.C. is concemed, is well settled. - 4, It is evident that the applicaat has aot pomted oirt aay manifest error on record and forther ha^ not broiight aiiy aew fact which coiild siot be- prodxiced by the applicant eariier impite ofdiie diligesit efforts. ft m a trite law that review proce^dmgs ha.ve to be stri^tly confai@d to tht W.P.(S)No. 4624/2004 ^'" ....A scope and ambit ofOrder 47 Riito 1 ofthe Codte ofCivil Proeediire, 1908. (See S.R.Chavan v. Cem&nt Corporation oflndia and other/ and Kanhatya LalMehar v. ^j^ Court ofChhattisgarh). 5» Principle of law is well settled by several jiidicial proiioii^cemerts of the Hon'ble Siipreme -Court m tto ca.se ofSmt Meem Bhanjan v. Smt Nirmala Ktimsr Choiidhary^^ Lily Thoma^ etc. v. Unian ofJndia and. other/, Aj'it Kumar Rath v. State ofOrissa and others, Qovernmentof T.N. andothers v. MAnanchu Asari andother/. 6» Iii th@ matter of Kcrla. State Ehctricity Board v. H'itech Elsctrothermics & Hydropower L^. and others, the Supreme Court observed as imder: •"10. This Coart hm referred to several documents on record and also cons.idered the doaimetitary evidence broiight on record, Tiiis Coiirt 011 a cotisideratioa of the evidence 011 record ^onduded the respondent had beea demed power Biipply by tto Board in appropriate time wliich preveirted the respondent from startmg the coiimiereial produclioii by 31-1.2-1996. Tfais is a. fmdmg offa.et recorded by this Coiirt oe Ihe basis of apprecialioB of •evid^ace - prodiwed before the Coiirt. I$i a. review p^iilioxi il is iioi opeii. lo ilii^ Coyrl to reappreciate the .evidesio^ and rea:c?h a difieresrt concly^ion, evaii ifthat m posiible. L^amed coimsel for the Board at best. soiight lo impress us Aal the correspoxideBce exchanged betweeii the parties did not • . supporl tlie coiiclissioii reach^d by' Ihi.s Coiirt. We are afraid aiioh a siibmissioii camiot be pemsitted to be advaaced in a review petilion. The appreciatioii of evidence osi record is ftiliy witMn tto domam of the appdlate courl. If on appreciatiosi of tfae evideace iM'odiwed, ttae 2(2008)1CGU519 3(2007}2CQU326 4AIR 1995 SC 455 5AIR200QSC1650 6AJR20QOSCS5 7 (2005)23cc 332 8 (2005) 6 SCC 651 @ coiirt records a fiisdmg offact axid rea^te^ a .coiidiisioii, that condusion eamiot be a^sailed m a review petition yiiless it is shown liial Itiere is aii error appareal OB ilie fa.ce of tlie record^ To pemiit the review pelitioaer lo argue on a qu^liosi of appreGi-ation of evid^ice woiild amovtrt.to convertmg a review pdition into aa appeal m disgiiise/' 7. The expla.iiation below Rvte 2 ef Order 47 by the Civil Procedixre Code (Amendmeiit) Act 1976 was mserteA The rea<te as midtr: "Exp^nation^ The fa.et. tliat tlie decision on a questiosi of law o.n which Ihe judgiient of the coiirt is bas^d has been rever^d or medified by tii@ subseqBent decision of a ^uperior eouri in aisy olher c^e^ sliall aol b^- a. groimd forthe review ofsiwhjiidgmeiit^9 8. In view offoregoing, even tiie subseqiient decisiosa- ofthis Court or by the Supreme Court which ha-s taken a. coatra-ry st<and ea.smot 'be a ^•oirnd for review of the order passed by tte Coiirt. ta the caae on hand, the review petitioner relies 021 a decisioii ofthe Smgle Judg@ ofthe High Court ofMadliya Pradesh, whicfa was pasaed prior to the order soii^st to be reviewed m this case. The dedsion of the otber High court is not bisidmg and ca.miot be a. groimd for revfcw <^f ' thiswder. 9. In State ofWestBengal & Others v. Kamat Sengiipts & Other/, the Supreme Coiirt observ@d that tlicre was a div^-genoe of opimoa of varioiia FIi^i Co'urts asto whether the sixbseqyetit. d^cisio!! ma.de by the same or a siiperior coiirt on a point of law, which is coBtrary to tlie decision taken ^arlier ca-n be treated m an €OTorappa-reat on the fa.ee of tlie record for the piirpose of review of a?i ^arlier yidgm^it The Supreme Coiirt, held as under: 9-..(2008) 8 SCC 612 "21. At tsis ^ta^e it is apposite to obsarve that where a review is sougiit 011 the groatid ofdiscovCTy ofiiew matter or eviden^ .such maltor or 'evidesice mu^l be relevanl aiid mu^t be of sudi a character that if'tfae :sai?i^ had been prodiiced, it .might ha.ve altered th@ judgiiieiil. In' other word^, mere di^covery of . H€W or important mattar or evideiioe is ^ot sullicient ground for review ex debito jusnUae, Not osily thi^ the party seekmg revi^w has ako lo show lliai ^uch addilioiial matter or evidence wa.s not within its Imowledge and ^ven afta~ tlie exerdse of duc diligence, Ihe s<mi^ coaid nol be prodiiced befi^re tie eoisrt earlier. 22. The term 'mistake or ^rror a-ppare^t.9 by its veiy comiotatioii sigtiifies an error wliicli is evid^nt. per se from th@ record ofthe axid does noi require delailed ^xamisialion, sairtiny aad ehicidation ^ithw ofthe fa.cts or llie legal poailioii- If axi error is nol .^elf-- evideiit anll detection thereof reqyirea lo^ig debale aod proc^ss for reasomngs, il caimol be -treated as an error apparesit oe ttie fece of tlie record for the piispose of Ord^ 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 23(3)(f) of&e Act, To put ii diflerenlly a?i order or dedsicm or jiid^Beiit camiot be corre.ct.eid merdy because ii is erroneous i.n law or' on ifae ^roimd tliat a, diff^rent view coiild ha.ve bem iakai by Ihe courl/lribanal OB a poinl offacl or law, Io aiiy case, wfaile exercieiiig the power of review, fhe com't/'teibunal coiiceraed eamiot sit m appeal ovcr its judgxiietit'/decisioii." lO.The.Supreme Coyrt, mKarnataka P^wer Cofpn. Ltd v. Alagendmn Exports Lt^°. observed as under: "7. Jji oiir view, the review a)uld not ha.ve b^ea allowed o&i Ihe grousid llial some olter coarl had .. tafcen a diifere.nt view. Merely beca-u^ two views are poasible is 110 yound'to review a already pa.ssed/? ll.Ths Suprsme Court, Union oflndia v. SubeRsm & Others observed asimder:' 10' (2004)13 SCC 377 (1997) 9 SCC 69 j "5.. Jt m tme that if it were a case of a siiperior court having mterpreted the law aiid the law ha.ving beeome fmal, by Qrder 47 Rule 1 CPC it could .noi consliluie a grouisd Ibr review of die ~ jiid^nent" 12»Applyingthe well settled prmoiples ofreview to the fa-cte offhe case, the applica.nt m swkmg opportiimty to argiie tlie ^ntire cas@ imder the garb ofreview petition, whioh is not peraiissibte aad t^nable m law< This review petition is m the natiire ofappeal whioh camiot b^ eonsidered and decided by this Coiirt. IS.Thus^ the review petition is devoid ofmerit aiid desen/^s to be and i^ accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Asmt