1. The present review petition has been preferred under Order XLVII Rule 1 and 2 CPC whereby petitioner is seeking review of the order dated 17/03/2017 passed by this Court in W.P. No.6474/2016.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner, after completing his graduation from Kumaun University, Nainital opted for M.Tech. Course in Atal Bihari Vajpaiyee I.I.I.T.M. Gwalior (hereinafter referred as 'Institute'). The said course consists of four semesters. He enrolled himself in 2006 for M.Tech. Course. He appeared and successfully cleared three semesters of his post graduation course. It appears that after 29/09/2007 he did not register for prosecuting his studies of 4th semester and went to Germany seemingly to ameliorate for better exacting in life. Consequently, he was awarded category 'I' (incomplete) and directed to report the session immediately but his nonappearance was obvious because of his assignment abroad. It further appears that he did not appear to prosecute the course further. After 8 years, petitioner returned back and tried to pick up the thread of completion of 4th semester from where he left in 2007 but remained unsuccessful because now the rules of institute were staring at him.
3. Being crestfallen by the response of the Institute, petitioner preferred writ petition vide W.P. No.6474/2016 and contended that in 4th semester, a candidate has to perform the research work and ultimately has to submit dissertation/ thesis to the concerned authority for which presence of the candidate is not required therefore, he sought declaration of result on the basis of assignment of thesis. Alternatively prayer of the petitioner was to get fresh re-registration in 4th semester of M.Tech. course so that he may complete it again.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and by way of filing reply and additional reply submitted their opposition while referring various rules framed by the respondents in this regard. It is submitted that grade 'I' is awarded if any course remains incomplete and after a particular period, no further reregistration can be done. Therefore, if petitioner desires to complete his M.Tech. course then he has to take fresh registration from 1st semester itself.
5. This Court after considering binary opposition, came to the conclusion that petitioner has no right to get inducted into 4th semester, after delay of considerable period of time especially when rules do not provide for such exigency. It was also mentioned specifically in the order that factum regarding submission of dissertation/ thesis could not be proved by the petitioner. Therefore, the petition was dismissed by this Court. Now the petitioner has preferred present review petition seeking review of the order passed by this Court on 17/03/2017 in W.P. No.6474/2016.
6. According to counsel for the petitioner, findings of Court in said writ petition bears error apparent on the face of the record because petitioner left Institute in May-June 2008 which is reflected from the counter-affidavit filed by the Institute in the writ petition therefore, it cannot be assumed that petitioner left the semester mid-way. In fact petitioner was there up till May-June, 2008. Since, 4th semester entails only dissertation work therefore, he handed over his dissertation/ thesis to the concerned authority, thereafter left for Germany. This Court in the earlier round of litigation proceeded on the assumption that petitioner remained absent since 29/12/2007 till end of semester May- June, 2008. Once the petitioner remained present till May-June, 2008 then findings of this Court are perverse.
7. Even otherwise, the only default in the case was presentation of dissertation and if any discrimination in relation to dissertation remained then it was the duty of the department to have afforded the petitioner an opportunity to re-submit his dissertation/ thesis on the topic chosen by him or topic provided by the Institute. Petitioner was doing research work in the Institute till May-June, 2008 and thereafter, he was offered some job for which necessary qualification was B.Tech. Therefore, petitioner to get experience in his field left for Germany. He contacted the Institute for M.Tech. degree but the same was refused and such refusal was absolutely impermissible in the eyes of law.
8. It is further submitted that no maximum period was prescribed for the purpose of completion of M.Tech. course and also for submission of dissertation/ thesis therefore, the impugned order needs reconsideration. It is also expressed by the counsel for the petitioner that no explanation has been given as to why and on what basis 'incomplete' [i.e.(I)] has been mentioned. Whether it is because of nonappearance in viva-voce or non-submission of the dissertation/ thesis.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and through the return vehemently opposed the prayer. According to respondents, no case for interference is made out. Petitioner is making an attempt for re-hearing the matter on merits which is not permissible in law. Respondents prayed for dismissal of the review petition.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
11. Scope of review is well defined through catena of decisions. In the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, (2014) 5 SCC 75, the apex Court has held that order sought to be reviewed must suffer from error apparent on the face of the record. In absence of such error apparent, even erroneous judgment/ order cannot be a ground for review, and finality of the judgment/ order cannot be disturbed. A mere repetition through different counsel, old and over-ruled arguments, a second trip over in-effectively covered grounds or minor mistakes of inconsequential import, mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. Similarly, error apparent on the face of the record, should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched unless the order suffers from miscarriage of justice/ material error, manifest on the face of the order, are some of the grounds on which review cannot be entertained.
12. Similarly, principles relating to review jurisdiction where the review will be maintainable or where review will not be maintainable, were summarized by the Apex Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati, 2013 (8) SCC 320 as under:-
'(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.'
13. The words 'any other sufficient reason' have been interpreted in the case of Chhajjud Ram Vs. Neki, (1921-22) 49 IA 144 and approved by the apex Court in the case of Moran Mar Basselioss Catholicos Vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius, AIR 1954 SC 526 to mean 'a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rules'. The same principles have been reiterated in the Union of India Vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. (2013) 8 SCC 337.
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 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 meres 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) Reviews is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.'
14. Thus, it is clear that scope of review jurisdiction is limited. Case is to be seen in the light of parameters referred above.
15. Here in the present case, petitioner raised the ground that he was available till May-June, 2008 in institute and thereafter, he left for Germany therefore, the said factual error is an error apparent on the face of record. Petitioner also raised the question over implementation of rules.
16. From perusal of the pleadings of the parties and the judgments referred by this Court in earlier round, it appears that the Court has decided the controversy after considering it from various angles. First perspective was in respect of submission of his dissertations/ thesis.
17. While considering the fact situation and different correspondences/ communications exchanged between the respondents inter se, it was concluded that petitioner could not prove submission of four sets of thesis before the competent authority when he left the Institution. Through various documents filed with additional return as Annexure R/3, R/4 and R/5, it appears that petitioner did not submit the dissertation/ thesis before the competent authority. Mere availability of one copy, cannot substantiate the submissions of the petitioner to a logical end to assert regarding submission of dissertation/ thesis. When concerned authorities categorically refused about receipt of any dissertation/ thesis from the petitioner's side, then no other inference can be drawn except to reject the submission of the petitioner.
18. Another perspective was of delay and latches which makes the whole gamut of facts suspicious. After questionable silence of 7-8 years, petitioner tried to reclaim what he left in 2007 or at best in 2008. This aspect has not been answered by the petitioner effectively. If the contention of the petitioner are taken on its face value, even then what was the reason for not re-asserting his claim for 7-8 years, was the aspe
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ct that could not be explained by the petitioner, but same was taken into consideration by the Division Bench while passing the impugned judgment dated 17/03/2017. Conduct of the petitioner was specifically discussed. 19. Besides that, another aspect incorporates the Rules itself. Once the Rules for a candidate, bestowed with 'I' grade (incomplete) carries disqualification, then he cannot be restored to the original position after lapse of 7-8 years because Rules appended with the reply and additional reply indicate that petitioner cannot be allowed to pick up the thread from where he left it in 2007 or 2008. The effect of Rules has also been discussed in the judgment under challenge. 20. The Division Bench of this Court after considering the fact situation and legal position, passed the impugned judgment dated 17/03/2017. Under the review jurisdiction, petitioner unable to point out any error apparent on the face of the record which could have persuaded this Court to tread on different path than already treaded. No case for interference is made out. 21. The review petition sans merits and the same is hereby dismissed.