Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 126 (HP)

GURDEV JASSAL v. TATE OF H. P.

2005-05-10

NARINDER SINGH THAKUR, S.S.NEGI

body2005
JUDGMENT Honble Mr. Narinder Thakur, Vice Chairman:— In the present Review Petition the applicant has alleged that the order dated April 26,2005 suffers from glaring mistake and there is error apparent on the face of record. The applicant submits that there are sufficient reasons to obtain a review of the aforesaid order passed by this Tribunal. The applicant has averred that the perusal of the impugned order dated 23.3.2005 as per Annexure-A/1 annexed with the Original Application would show that the applicant was transferred from Pragpur to Nirmand, District Kullu and no one was posted in his place at Pragpur. Therefore, the statement of the learned Additional Advocate General noticed by this Tribunal that the substitute of the applicant has already joined in the place of the applicant is contrary to the record which constitute error apparent on the face of record. Moreover, there is no where mentioned in the policy that an employee who has served tribal area cannot be transferred again to tribal area. It is averred that the transfer policy on page 87 of the Hand Book on Recruitment, Promotion and other Service Matters, Vol-II (1986 Edn.) (e) only such person as have not earlier served in tribal areas be posted there. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General and have gone through their pleadings very carefully. The main grouse of the applicant is that the applicant has already served tribal area and Govt. servant cannot be repeatedly transferred to such area. Second growing taken by the applicant is that substitute of the applicant has not joined at Pragpur i.e. in place of the applicant. In the present case the applicant was not transferred by the respondents department to tribal are as Nirmand is not a tribal area. So for as the second ground taken by the applicant is concerned that the substitute of the applicant has not joined at Pragpur, the learned Additional Advocate General has produced letter issued by the Director of Agriculture, dated April. So for as the second ground taken by the applicant is concerned that the substitute of the applicant has not joined at Pragpur, the learned Additional Advocate General has produced letter issued by the Director of Agriculture, dated April. 29, 2005 which was faxed through telephone No. 2626373 dated April 29,2005 vide which it has been submitted that Shri Gurdev Singh Jassal, Subject Matter Specialist has been relieved from his duties on 23.3.2005 (E.N.) In his place Shri Arvind Kumar Gupta has joined as Subject Matter Specialist at Development Block, Pragpur on 26.4.2005 (E.N.) Therefore, both of the ground referred to above is totally contrary to the record and there is no error apparent on the face of the record. No new facts has been brought by the applicant in this Review Petition. Letter dated April 29, 2005 issued by the Directors of Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh shows that the applicant has concealed the material facts from this Tribunal. Because the applicant was relieved by the respondent department on 23.3.2005 and the substitute of the applicant has joined on 26.4.2005 (A.N.) and the present Original Application was filed by the applicant on April 25, 2005 and the same was rejected by this Tribunal on April 26, 2005. It is well settled position of law by the Honble Apex Court in Chandra Kanta and Another vs. Sheik Habib, AIR 1975 SC 1500 which reads as under;- "That a review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. A mere repetition through different counsel of old and everruled arguments, a second trip ever ineffectually covered ground or minor mistake of inconsequential import are obviously insufficient. 3. The Honble Apex Court in Ariba, Tuleshwar Sharma vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma and others AIR 1979 SC 1047 has observed as under:- "..The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was net within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced b y him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may else be exercised on any analogous ground. But it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits.’ 4. During the course of arguments the learned Additional Advocate General has cited a case law AIR 1.995 SC 455 in which the Honble Apex Court has observed that- "That the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1, Review "Error apparent on face of record means an error which strikes one or mere looking at record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on points where their may conceivably be two opinions." 5. Moreover, the applicant has concealed the material facts from this Tribunal as the applicant was relieved by the respondents department on 23.3.2005 and the substitute of the applicant has joined on 26.4.2005 and the present Original Application was filed by the applicant on April 25,2005. This case is fully covered by the judgment of Honble High Court of H.P. reported in 1979 Shimla Law Cases 298 res Shankar Dass Vs. State of H.P. and others in which it has .been observed that- “Writ petitioners are decided merely on pleadings stated on oath and, therefore, it is the duty of the litigants not to falsi with regard to any material fact at the time of filing the writ petition, if a petitioner subsequently come out with same material fact which could have obtained for him from the Court there is no escape from the conclusion that he has done so with a view to procure an exparte order in his favour by keeping the Court in dark as regards the facts which were within his knowledge. Such an attitude on the part of a petitioner can never be encouraged when the extra ordinary jurisdiction contemplated by Article 226 of the Constitution is sought to be invoked." 6. Taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances of the case, that the applicant has concealed the material facts, only on this score, the present Review Petition can be thrown-out. This is also settled position of law by the Honble Apex Court that howsoever strong is the case of the applicant, if certain material/facts have been concealed, the application can be thrown out. Hence this case is fully covered by the judgment referred to above. Moreover, the grounds taken by the applicant in the present Review Petition is totally contrary to the record. 7. Hence this case is fully covered by the judgment referred to above. Moreover, the grounds taken by the applicant in the present Review Petition is totally contrary to the record. 7. In view of this position, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record, as such the present Review Petition is rejected with no order as to costs. Review Petition Stands finally disposed of.