WRIT PETITION 24942 of2015 on 15 April 1986

1. The Andhra Pradesh Power, Generation Corporation Ltd., represented by itsChairman, Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad.Chairman, Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad.

2. The Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Ltd.,Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad.Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad.

3. TheDirector (HR),A.P.Power GenerationCorporation, VidyuthSoudha,Hyderabad.Hyderabad.

4. The Chief Engineer, Rayalaseema Thermal Power Project, Kadapa.

...REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS ^AND

1. Smt. Karnati (Gangavaram) Radhika, Wife of G. Narsimha Reddy, Aged about25years,Occ:Housewife/ Um-employed,residentofKalamailaVillage,Yerraguntia Mandal, Kadapa District.25years,Occ:Housewife/ Um-employed,residentofKalamailaVillage,Yerraguntia Mandal, Kadapa District.

...RESPONDENTS/PETTIONERS.^

2. The District Collector, Kadapa, Kadapa District.

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No.5 -

Petitionunder Order47,Rule1of the CPCprayingthatinthecircumstances statedin the affidavit filedin support of the petition, theHigh Court may be pleased to review the Order passedin W.P. 24942 of2015,dated.20.12.2022byhisLordshipHon]bleSriJusticeTarladaRajasekhar Rao. ^

WRIT PETITION NO: 24942 OF 2015

Between:

Smt. Karnati (Gangavaram) Radhika, Wife of G. Narsimha Reddy, Aged about 25years, Occ: Housewife/ Ui||f|-employed, resident of Kalamaila Village, YerraguntiaMandal, Kadapa District.

AND

...PETITIONER

1. The Andhra Pradesh Power, Generation Corporation Ltd., represented by itsChairman, Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad.Chairman, Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad.

2. The Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Ltd.,Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad.Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad.

3. TheDirector (HR), A.P. Power Generation Corporation, VidyuthSoudha,Hyderabad.Hyderabad.

4. The Chief Engineer, Rayalaseema Thermal Power Project, Kadapa.5.The District Collector, Kadapa, Kadapa District.5.The District Collector, Kadapa, Kadapa District.

...RESPONDENTS-

Petition under Article 226^of the Constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances statedin theaffidavitfiled therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly[one][ in][ the][ nature][ of]Writof Mandamus,directingthe respondentstoconsiderthecaseofthepetitionerfor appointmentto the postof JuniorPlant Attendanttakingintoaccount the qualification and eligibility as per G.O.Ms.No.98 Irrigation (ProjectsWing) Department dated 15.04.1986 and also as per the recommendations of theDistrict Selection Committee vide their Ref.No.A3/1109/2011 dated 10.02.2014 ofthe 4*^ respondent herein under Land Losers Quota as the petitioner name stoodat SI.No.166.^

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015fWPMP. NO: 32381 OF 2015^

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased todirect the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment tothepostof JuniorPlant Attendant under displacedpersonsquotaasperG.O.Ms.No.98 Irrigation (Projects Wing) Department dated 15.04.1986 and alsoaspertherecommendationsof theDistrictSelectionCommitteevidetheirRef.No.A3/1109/2011 dated 10.02.2014 of the5**^ respondent herein, pendingdisposal of the Writ Petition. ^

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2023-

Conclusion

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying thatin the[circumstances][ stated]in the affidavit filedin support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased toconsider the Orders of Writ Appeal No.908 of 2023 passed on 3-11-2023 by thisHon’ble High Court, \A/hile passing the Orders in Review[Petition]inI.A. No.1of2023in W.P. No.24942 of 2015, and the Present I.A.[and]Additional Affidavitfiledin Review Petition No.1of 2023 in W.P. No.24942 of 2015 may be read aspart and for the better appreciation of the facts and[circumstances][ of][ the][ case^]

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI M. VIDYA SAGAR, _SC FOR APGENCOCounsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI P RAVI SHANKER- Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR REVENUE - The Court made the following; ORDER

The present I.A is filed to review the order dated 20.12.2022 passed inW.P.No.24942 of 2015, directing the respondents to[consider][ the][ case][ of][ the]petitionertoappointherasJuniorPlantAttendantsbasingupontheG.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986 within a period of six (06) weeks from thedate of receipt of copy of the order of this Court, on the following grounds:-'

(i) thattherespondentNo.1inthewritpetition, whoisthereviewpetitioner, cannot appoint thewrit petitionerinthe absence of anyrecruitment notificationfor the saidpost andthecasesof thewritpetitioner will be considered as per G.O.Ms.No.98,[dated]15.04.1986against the 50% of the vacancies.petitioner, cannot appoint thewrit petitionerinthe absence of anyrecruitment notificationfor the saidpost andthecasesof thewritpetitioner will be considered as per G.O.Ms.No.98,[dated]15.04.1986against the 50% of the vacancies.

(ii) Whenever the review petitioner issues a direct recruitment[notification]and also as and when the notification issued by the respondents.and also as and when the notification issued by the respondents.

(iii) Ifitis possible, the respondents may consider the[case][ of][ the]petitioners to appoint them on any temporary basis”[and]alsorelied on the judgment of a learnedSingle Judgeof[this][ Court]inW.P.No.24319 of 2018, dated 14.03.2023, whereby the learned Singlepetitioners to appoint them on any temporary basis”[and]alsorelied on the judgment of a learnedSingle Judgeof[this][ Court]inW.P.No.24319 of 2018, dated 14.03.2023, whereby the learned Single Judgedisposedof thewritpetitiondirectingtherespondentstoconsider the case of the 2'^^ petitioner therein, in view of the guidelinesin G.O.Ms.No.98 and also directed to complete theexercise, as per^their need, as early as possible.

The said order was assailedin W.A.No.908 of 2023 and the learnedDivision Bench dismissed the said appeal in the following[manner:]

“AperusalofG.O.Ms.No.98,dated15.04.1986aswellasthecommunications between the respondents and land losers, set out before thisCourt would show that the respondents had only assured the land losers that50% of the posts, under the appropriate categories, would be reserved for theland losers and they would be given employment as and when recruitment forthe these posts is held”.

Now, the review petitioners urge this Court to modify[the][ order][ in][ the]following manner:

Allowing/permitting the respondents to fill up the posts as and when therecruitment notification is issued by the 1®' respondent/review petitioner and^also voiced that even the G.O. also specifies the same.

Thelearned counselforthewritpetitioner would submitthattherespondents have filled up the posts as per their whims and fancies andthough the writ petitioners were seniors and eligible to the other candidates,the respondents have appointed the ineligible candidates and even thoughthere are number of posts, the respondents are not filling up the posts asdirected by this Court. Hence, he would pray to dismiss the review petition^

The question falls for consideration before this Courtis whether thereview petition shall be maintainable under the aforesaid grounds.

The Supreme Court recently in Government of NCT of Delhi throughits Secretary, Land and Building Department and Another Vs. K.L.RathiSteels Limited and Others reportedin 2024 SCC Online SC 1090, on^reference, has framed the following issues:

a) Can the review petitioners, on the basis of the pleadings in the reviewpetitions be considered persons aggrieved? ^

b) XXX

C) XXX.

d) Can the review petitioners be held to be maintainable, giving dueregard to the Explanation in Rule 1 of Order XLVIl, CPCvis-a-vis Manoharlal;5 Judge, lapse] ?

e)If the answer to (d)is in the negative, do the review petitionsstilldeserve to be entertained on the other grounds urged[therein?]

f) XXX? Order XLVIl does not end with the circumstances as Section 114CPC, the substantive provision, does. Review power under Section 114 readwith Order XLVIl, CPC is available to be exercised, subject to fulfillment of theabove conditions, on setting up by the review petitioner any of the followinggrounds namely;

(i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence;[or]

(ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or

(iii) any other sufficient reason.

The Supreme Court observed in the following paragraph[Nos.40][ to][ 42;]40. Insofar as (i) (supra) is concerned, the review petitioner has to showthat such evidence (a) was actually available on thedatethecourtmade the order/decree, (b) with reasonable care and diligence,it couldnot be brought by him before the court at the time of the order/decree,(c) it was relevant and material for a decision, and (d) by reason of itsabsence, a miscarriage of justice has been caused in the sense thathad it been produced and considered by the court, the ultimate decisionwould have been otherwise.

41. Regarding (ii) (supra), the review petitioner has to satisfy the courtthat the mistake or error committedbyitis self-evidentandsuchmistake or error can be pointed out without any long-drawn process ofreasoning; and, if such mistake or error is not corrected and is permittedto stand, the same will lead to a failure of justice. There cannot be a fit-inall definition of “mistake or error apparent on the face of the record”and it has been considered prudent by the courts to determine whether any mistake or error does exist considering the facts of each individualcase coming before it.

42. With regard to(iii) (supra), we can do no better than refer to thetraditional view in Chhajju Ram, (AIR 1922 PC 112)[a][ decision]of aBench of seven Law Lordsof theJudicial Committeeof thePrivyCouncil.It was held there that the words “any other sufficient reason”meansa reasonsufficient on grounds at least analogous to[those]specified immediately previously”, meaning thereby (i) and(ii) (supra).Notably, Chhajju Ram (supra) has been consistently followed by thisCourtin a number of decisions starting with MoranMarBasseliosCatholics v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius.

In the case of Parsion Devi and Ors. -Vrs.- Sumitri Devi and Ors.reported in (1997) 8 Supreme Court Cases 715, the Hon'ble SupremeCourt held as under:

9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, a judgment may beopen to review, inter alia,if there is a mistake or an error apparent onthe face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to bedetected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an errorapparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exerciseitspower of review under Order 47 Rule1 Code of Civil Procedure.Inexerciseof the jurisdictionunderOrder 47Rule1CodeofCivilProcedure, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheardand corrected". A review petition,it must be remembered has a limitedpurpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise.

The words"anyothersufficientreasonhavebeeninterpretedinChhajju Ram v. Neki (AIR 1922 PC 112) and approved by this Court in MoranMar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius: AIR 1954SC 526 to meana reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to[those]specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiteratedin Union ofIndia v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd.: (2013) 8 SCC 337. 20.2. Whenthe review will not be maintainable:

(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough[to]reopen concluded adjudications.reopen concluded adjudications.

(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.

(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equatedwiththeoriginalhearing of the case.hearing of the case.

(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifeston the face of the order, undermines its soundness or resultsin miscarriage of justice.on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or resultsin miscarriage of justice.

(V)A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby[an]erroneous decisionis reheard and corrected but lies only forpatent error.erroneous decisionis reheard and corrected but lies only forpatent error.

(Vi)The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot[be][ a]ground for review.ground for review.

(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be anerror which has to be fished out and searched.error which has to be fished out and searched.

As per the judgment, the review petitioners have not raised anynew and important matter or evidence and there is no mistake or errorapparent on the face of the record and the review petitioners[have][ not]pleaded any sufficient reason to review the orders of this Hon’ble Court.Even the judgment of the learned Single Judge, relied upon by thereviewpetitioners,indicatesthatadirectionwasgiventotheGovernment tofill up the posts and the same was confirmed by theDivision Bench. No more details are filed in the present review petitionor there is no error apparent on the face of the record and no sufficientreasonas per the judgment of Chhajju Ram case (supra) was given toreview the orders of this Hon’ble Court and this Hon’ble Court onlydirected to consider the case of the writ petitioner to appoint herasJuniorPlantAttendantsbasingupontheG.O.Ms.No.98,dated15.04.1986. Hence, this Court found no reasons to allow the ReviewI.A.

Accordingly, the Review I.A. is dismissed.It is also brought to thenotice of this Hon’ble Court that the Managing Director[has][ addressed][ a]letter to the Government for permission to fill up the posts and thesameis under the consideration of the Government and as and when theGovernment gives permission, they will fill up the posts.

As seen from the record, the respondents/review petitioners[have]issued a notificationin the year, 2011 andtill today, they have notissued any notification and virtually the writ petitioners are deprived oftheir right to life.

On taking into consideration of the response of the[counsel][ for]the review petitioners, this Court directs the review petitioners to issuenotification to fill up the posts as expeditiously as possible, not later thanthree(03) months. This Order wouldnot comeinthe way for thedisposal of the contempt case and the contempt case[will][ be][ decided][ in]accordance with law.

To,

SD/- M. RAMESH BABUDEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SN OFFICER

1. OneCCto SriM.VidyaSagar, SCforAPGENCO[OPUC] ^

2. OneCCto Sri. P Ravi Shanker Advocate [OPUC]^

3. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

4. Three CD Copies

Cnr

HIGH COURT

DATED:26/09/2024

ORDER

REVIEW I.A. No.1 of 2023inWP.No.24942 of 2015

^ofanoB^.-r-i 5 nCT 2P2<|mir £^spatch^

DISMISSING THE REVIEW I.A. No.1 of 2023WITHOUT COSTS

CNR