Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ
1. Heard Mr. Yuvraj Samant with Ms. Bina Pande, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. J.C. Pandey, learned Brief Holder for the State of
Uttarakhand- respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned counsel for the Public Service Commission-respondent no.4.
2. This application is filed seeking review of the order passed by us in Writ Petition (S/B) No.04 of 2018 dated 11.02.2019. We had, in the said order,
observed that, as the disputes raised in the writ petition could be effectively adjudicated by the Tribunal, we saw no reason to entertain the writ
petition. We had, therefore, relegated the petitioners to avail their effective statutory remedy of approaching the Public Services Tribunal constituted
under the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976. Leaving it open to the petitioners to approach the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal,
we had dismissed the writ petition. Review is now sought of this order passed by us.
3. The submission urged, on behalf of the review applicants, by Mr. Yuvraj Samant, learned Counsel, is that the remedy of approaching the Public
Services Tribunal is not efficacious since substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this case; it also involves interpretation of several
judgments of this Court; similar issues are also pending before this Court; and, in the light of the law declared by the Supreme Court in
“Maharashtra Chess Association v. Union of India†(order in Civil Appeal No.5654 of 2019 dated 29.07.2019), this Court should take a holistic
view while examining whether or not to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or to relegate the petitioner to the
remedy of approaching the Public Services Tribunal.
4. What is now sought to be reviewed is the order passed by us earlier relegating the petitioner to the remedy of invoking the jurisdiction of the Public
Services Tribunal. In review proceedings, the contentions, urged on merits, are ordinarily not examined as these are all matters within the purview of
an appellate Court. There are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new
and important matters or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could
not be produced by 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 also be exercised on any analogous ground. But it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That
would be the province of a Court of Appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with the appellate power which may enable an Appellate Court
to correct all manner of errors committed by the Subordinate Court. [Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma and others : AIR 1979 SC
1047; Shivdeo Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and other : AIR 1963 SC 190;9 Smt. Meera Bhanja vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury : AIR
1995 SC 455]. Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal, and should be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C.
(Smt. Meera Bhanja vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury : AIR 1995 SC 455).
5. A party is not entitled to seek review of a judgment merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. [Sajjan Singh vs. State
of Rajasthan : AIR 1965 SC 845; M/s Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi : (1980) 2 SCC 167]. A review proceeding
cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except
“where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility.†[Saw Chandra Kante & another vs.
Sheikh Habib : (1975) 1 SCC 674; M/s Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi : (1980) 2 SCC 167. ]In review proceedings,
this Court would interfere only if the order under review suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record.
6. It is only if the order under review suffers from an error apparent, would interference be justified. It is not even contended before us that the Public
Services Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain and examine this dispute. The contention is that while there, no doubt, exists a remedy, it is not
efficacious.
7. The submission regarding the remedy, not being efficacious, is based on the premise that the Tribunal may find it difficult to understand the scope
and purport of various judgments passed by this Court. The Public Services Tribunal is bound by the judgments of this Court, and we see no reason
why the judgments, on which the petitioner seeks to place reliance upon, cannot be placed before the Tribunal for its consideration.
8. Pendency of other proceedings, if any, before this Court does not, by itself and without anything more, justify the order passed by us being
reviewed. It is, no doubt, true that the Supreme Court, in Maharashtra Chess Association (order in Civil Appeal No.5654 of 2019 dated 29.07.2019),
has held that the High Court must look at the case holistically, and decide whether or not to exercise its writ jurisdiction.
9. On a holistic view alone, was the order under review passed relegating the petitioners to approach the Public Services Tribunal.
10. Once, it is admitted that the Public Services Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the issue, the order under review cannot be said to suffer from an
error apparent, warranting exercise of the review jurisdiction of this Court.
11. The review application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
No costs.
