Madhya Pradesh State Taekwondo Association and others Vs Taekwondo Federation of India and others
Bench: Single Bench
Acts Referenced
Judgement Snapshot
Case Number
472-2016
Hon'ble Bench
SUJOY PAUL
Acts Referred
- Constitution of India, Article 226 - Power of High Courts to Issue certain writs
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 47Rule 1, O
Judgement Text
Translate:
1. By way this review petition, the petitioner, University is seeking review of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.4865/2014 dated 16.6.2016.
2. Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner submits that certain dates and events are necessary for proper appreciation of the grounds taken in the review petition. It is submitted that W.P.No.4865/2014 was filed on 19.3.2014 against an order of cancellation of appointment dated 25.3.2013. As per the claim of the respondent employee, he submitted his joining pursuant to the appointment order before the University on 17.10.2012. In the writ petition, he assailed the impugned order whereby the appointment order was cancelled but did not ask for any relief of salary or financial benefits. It is submitted by learned Sr. Counsel that the writ petition was allowed on the basis of document dated 12/13.11.2013 (Annexure P-10) wherein visit of respondent employee to the University was admitted but it was mentioned that such a visit was his ''personal visit''. It is further mentioned that the university has not maintained any record regarding said visit. Learned Sr. Counsel further submits that along with the review petition, the university has filed certain relevant documents which were not in their possession at the time of filing of the reply. The discovery of these new documents which could not be filed despite due diligence along with the return in the main case, throw light that the respondent employee is guilty of suppression of material facts. He did not approach the court with the clean hands and for these reasons alone he is not entitled for any relief in equitable jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Learned Sr. Counsel submits that certain documents will show that if these documents would have been filed in the main case, this Court would not have granted relief to the original petitioner. She submits that these grounds are analogous to the grounds flowing from Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC.
4. To bolster these submissions, attention of this Court is drawn on Annexure P-4 filed with writ petition whereby the present respondent was directed by the petitioner University to bring his last pay certificate and reliving order from competent authority of Central University of Rajasthan so that his pay can be fixed accordingly. She also relied on Annexure P-8 dated 17.10.2012 which is the joining letter of the respondent before the petitioner University. Learned Sr. Counsel further submits that Annexure P-10 dated 12.11.2013, nowhere shows that the petitioner''s joining at present university was admitted by the respondents. During the course of arguments, reliance is placed on document dated 11.4.2012, written by Ministry of Human Resources Development to Vice Chancellor of Central University of Rajasthan. This document shows that the respondent employee was appointed as First Finance Officer in Central University of Rajasthan up to 4.5.2013. The document dated 2.2.2013 (Annexure F) shows that the Vice Chancellor of petitioner University informed the Ministry that the respondent employee did not join before the petitioner University and therefore, a request was made to give appropriate directions/advise. Learned Sr. Counsel submits that this document clearly shows that the respondent employee did not join at university and this fact was immediately brought to the notice of the Ministry by communication dated 2.2.2013. She drew attention on the note sheet of MHRD dated 13.2.2013 (Annexure G). It is urged that as per this note sheet, it is clear that the respondent employee did not join at Sagar. In this review petition, heavy reliance is placed on the document date 20.10.2012 (Annexure I). This is a letter written by respondent No.1 to the Vice Chancellor of Central University of Rajasthan. It is argued that this document shows that when the respondent was not allegedly permitted to join at petitioner''s university at Sagar on 17.10.2012, he telephonically discussed the issue with the Vice Chancellor of Rajasthan University and, in turn, prayed for permission to withdraw his resignation from the post of First Finance Officer at Rajasthan University with further request to treat his period of absence between 17.10.2012 to 19.10.2012 as leave.
5. Learned Sr. Counsel submits that the pleadings (facts of the case) of the writ petition show that the petitioner has nowhere pleaded that after alleged refusal of joining at Sagar, the petitioner withdrew his resignation and joined at Rajasthan university and performed his duties from 20.10.2012 to 4.5.2013. Had it been pleaded, there was no occasion for the Court to grant him any relief.
6. It is contended by the petitioner that if two appointment orders on contract basis are simultaneously issued and petitioner executed one of them and worked there till completion of the tenure, thereafter he cannot ask for benefit of any other appointment order or the benefits arising thereto on the basis of subsequent appointment on contractual basis. It is strenuously contended that after completion of term at Rajasthan on 4.5.2013, W.P.No.4865/2014 was filed. The petitioner did not file any petition immediately after 17.10.2012 when he was allegedly not permitted to join at Sagar. In support of her contentions, reliance is placed on (2008) 12 SCC 353 Ganpatbhai Mahijibhai Solanki Versus State Of Gujarat.
7. Per contra, Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the said contentions. However, he fairly submits that the respondent No.1 was in employment in Rajasthan University between 20.10.2012 to 4.5.2013. He submits that the question of suppression of fact does not arise because in paragraph 6.5 of the writ petition, the petitioner therein has categorically mentioned that because of arbitrary action of the present petitioner, the present respondent was compelled to revert back to the Central University, Rajasthan and worked there for some time. It is contended that there was no suppression of the fact and contention of the University is without any basis. He placed heavy reliance on the document dated 2.2.2013 (Annexure F) which is a communication between the Vice Chancellor of petitioner University and the Ministry. By placing reliance on this document, Shri Agrawal contends that the petitioner University was fully aware that the present respondent had joined back at Central University Rajasthan as First Finance officer. This information was available with the present petitioner before 2.2.2013 i.e. much before filing of the W.P.No.4865/2014. The fact which was fully known to the present petitioner and pleaded by present respondent No.1 in paragraph 6.5 of the writ petition, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be suppression of material fact. He, by placing reliance in (2013) 8 SCC 320, Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, urged that the necessary ingredients for invoking review jurisdiction are not available in the present case. At best, the respondent can be deprived from financial benefits between 20.10.2012 to 4.5.2013, the period when he actually worked at the Rajasthan University, the period after his joining was not accepted by the petitioner University on 17.10.2012.
8. It is not in dispute between the parties that the respondent No.1 later-on joined the petitioner University as First Finance Officer on 5.5.2014.
9. No other point is pressed by counsel for the parties.
10. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.
11. The first point raised by learned Senior Counsel is regarding alleged suppression of fact on the part of respondent No.1. As noticed, in para-6.5 of the writ petition, the respondent No.1 disclosed the fact that on refusal to join by Sagar University, he went back to Central University of Rajasthan and worked there for sometime. On completion of his service at Central University, Rajasthan, he intended to join on the post in question at Sagar. Apart from this, the document dated 2.2.2013 (Annexure-F) makes it crystal clear that the factum of rejoining of respondent No.1 at Central University of Rajasthan as first Finance Officer, was known to the University. Thus, I am unable to hold that in strict terms, there was any calculated misrepresentation of fact on the part of respondent No.1.
12. As per aforesaid factual backdrop, it is clear that two orders were issued whereby fixed term appointments were given to the petitioner. One order was related with Central University, Rajasthan whereas the other order was related with petitioner/ university. The respondent No.1 initially joined the Central University, Rajasthan. Thereafter, he tendered his resignation and intended to join at Sagar University. When permission was not accorded to join at Sagar University, he admittedly, went back to Rajasthan, requested to withdraw his resignation and prayed that period of absence of few days may be adjusted by granting leave. It is also admitted that Central University, Rajasthan permitted the petitioner to resume back and consequently he worked in Central University, Rajasthan in the second spell between 20.10.2012 to 04.05.2013. After completion of tenure at Rajasthan University, he filed the instant writ petition on 19.3.2014. The offer of appointment for present University was from 28.06.2012 for three years. Indisputably, the period of three years was to be counted from the date of submission of joining.
13. As per case of respondent No.1, he submitted his joining before present petitioner on 17.10.2012. Since, he was not permitted to join, he resumed at Central University, Rajasthan. After completion of tenure at Central University, Rajasthan, he filed the instant writ petition. Although, this court held that there was no calculated misrepresentation of fact, it is clear that in the writ petition the relevant facts were not disclosed with accuracy and precession. The aforesaid averment in para-6.5 of the writ petition should have been part of ???facts of the case??? and not part of ???grounds???. The original petitioner should have disclosed with necessary factual details that he was permitted to withdraw his resignation by Central University, Rajasthan and the period of absence was regularized by granting him leave and he completed his tenure at Rajasthan University.
14. The core issue for consideration before this court is that if these facts would have been brought to the notice of this court whether the same order would have been passed or not. For the reasons best known to the parties, neither the present petitioner nor respondent No.1 apprised this court at the time of advancing arguments in W.P.No.4865/14 that the petitioner, after 17.10.2012, went back to resume his earlier employment at Central University, Rajasthan. Had it been informed to this court, the result would have been different. In that event, there was no question of granting relief of compensation which is equal to the payment of salary between the period 17.10.2012 onwards. At the cost of repetition, the respondent No.1 rejoined at University at Rajasthan w.e.f 20.10.2012. Thus, the question of granting him compensation equal to the salary does not arise.
15. The parties are at logger heads on the question of maintainability of this review petition. This is trite law that review petition can be entertained on the principles analogous to Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. If a relevant document/ material has escaped notice of this court, this can very well be a reason for review. The party did not apprise the court that respondent No.1 has resumed back at Central University. This ground alone is sufficient to recall the order dated 16.6.2016 passed in W.P.No.4865/14. This court passed the said order in exercise of equity jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and directed to pay compensation which should be equal to the amount of salary which present respondent would have earned if he would have been in service of petitioner university. If the factum of rejoining of respondent No.1 would have been brought to the notice of this Court, the said relief wold not have been granted by this Court.
16. Shri Agarwal, although relied on the case of Kamlesh Verma (supra), I am of the view that the said judgment is of no assistance to the respondent No.1. The review is maintainable on discovery of new and important matters or evidence which after exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the party or could not be produced by him. Thus, this provision, in a given case, covers the inaction of not producing the relevant document which can become a reason for exercising review jurisdiction. The Sagar University has filed certain new documents which could not be produced by it in the main writ petition. These documents conclusively establish the fact (which fact is not denied by respondent No.1) that he did not remain out of employment after 17.10.2012. Resultantly, the order passed in equity jurisdiction for grant of compensation needs to be recalled.
17. Consequently, the order dated 16.6.2016 passed in W.P.No.4865/14, is hereby recalled.
18. Review petition is allowed.
