Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1905 (GAU)

Satyajit Das v. Gauhati University

2025-11-21

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

body2025
JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Shri Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri P.J. Phukan, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati University. 2. By the instant application, review has been sought qua the judgment dated 27.06.2025 passed in WP(C)/2348/2020 instituted by the applicant. By the aforesaid judgment, the writ petition was dismissed. 3. Shri Mannan, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the impugned judgment, there is a mention of certain resolutions including a resolution dated 21.03.2018 which has been said to be annexed with the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the University on 03.08.2023. He has submitted that no such resolution had existed and in this regard, he has also enclosed, with this application, a RTI response given to the applicant. He has also highlighted that the alleged requirement that a candidate must have at least ST ST two 1 Division / 1 Class or equivalent in HSLC, HS, Bachelor’s Degree and Master’s Degree is not strictly adhered to. 4. Shri Phukan, the learned Standing Counsel has however submitted that though it may be a matter of fact that the resolution dated 21.03.2018 was not enclosed to the affidavit-in-opposition dated 03.08.2023, there is a clear mention of the same in paragraph 3 (III) of the affidavit filed in the writ petition. He has however clarified that the resolution of the Executive Council (EC) is dated 31.03.2018 which had endorsed the resolution dated 21.03.2018 of the Meeting of the Deans. He has submitted that both the resolution dated 21.03.2018 of the Meeting of the Deans and the resolution dated 31.03.2018 of the Executive Council were placed before this Court. He has also clarified that the RTI query was with regard to an alleged resolution of 21.03.2018 of the Executive Council which itself is incorrect as the Executive Council resolution is actually dated 31.03.2018 whereby the Meeting of the Dean resolution dated 21.03.2018 was adopted. He has also submitted that the other grounds raised cannot be a ground of review which has to be an error apparent on the face of the record. 5. He has also submitted that the other grounds raised cannot be a ground of review which has to be an error apparent on the face of the record. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records including the records of the related writ petition, this Court has found that the Minutes of the Meeting of the Deans dated 21.03.2018 along with the resolution of the Executive Council dated 31.03.2018 were placed before this Court and have been kept with the records. 6. This Court had also noted that the query in the RTI application appears to be erroneous as admittedly, there is no EC resolution of 21.03.2018 and the EC resolution is actually of 31.03.2018 whereby the resolution of the Meeting of the Deans dated 21.03.2018 was adopted. 7 . So far as the other ground of aberration of the said resolution is concerned by demonstrating the case of certain candidates, this Court is of the opinion that the said aspect would not come within an exercise to be performed by a Review Court to review its earlier order. 8 . In the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati & Ors . , reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320 , the following have been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court: “20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: 20.1. When the review will be maintainable: (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words “any other sufficient reason” have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule”. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. 20.2. When the review will not be maintainable: (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. 20.2. When the review will not be maintainable: (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.” 9. In the subsequent case of S Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. V Narayana Reddy & Ors reported in (2022) SCC OnLine 1034 , a Three Judges’ Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the aforesaid law laid down in the case of Kamlesh Verma (supra). 10 . In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that no sufficient grounds have been able to be made out for review of the order dated 27.06.2025 in question. 11 . Accordingly, the Review Petition stands dismissed.