9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 1190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Teacher, JPSC issued another advertisement on 24.10.2007, whereby the Para-Teachers, who were pursuing Diploma in Primary Education (DPE) course from the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), New Delhi and who were about to appear in the final examination of DPE course or waiting for the result of the said course, were also made eligible for appearing in the examination of the Primary Trained Teachers and the last date of submission of form was extended till 2.11.2007. The review petitioner applied for the said post and appeared in the examination held on 10.8.2008 and was declared successful but the result was kept pending for non-submission of his Training Certificate (DPE certificate). The review petitioner appeared for DPE examination in December 2008. On 30.5.2009, JPSC published the result in which the review petitioner was declared successful but his result was kept pending due to non-submission of training certificate. Case of the Review petitioner is that after publication of the result, the last date for submission of DPE certificate was fixed as 30.7.2009 and the petitioner submitted DPE certificate on 3.8.2009 in the office of the JPSC and inspite of submiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... definitive limits fixed by the language used in Order 47 Rule 1. It may allow a review on three specified grounds, namely, (i) discovery of new and important matter of evidence, which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order was made; (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) for any other sufficient reason. 6. An error apparent on the face of the record must be such an apparent error, which in one glance can be detected without advancing long drawn arguments of either side. The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Reappraisal of evidence or materials is not permissible. The "review" is by no means "an appeal in disguise". 7. Mr. Binod Singh, learned counsel for the review petitioner, contended that learned Single Judge and this Court failed to appreciate that as per the advertisement, the candidates, who have completed the DPE course and were about to appear in the examination, were allowed to appear in the examination held by the JPSC for the pos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt, the JPSC extended the last date of submission of the application forms as 27.10.2007 and also issued corrigendum to the said effect. The English translation of Clause 1 and Clause 4 of the said corrigendum, which are relevant in this case, are as follows:- "Clause- 1 Such candidates, who have fulfilled the terms and conditions of Teachers Training as mentioned in earlier published Advertisement No.5/07{eligible (b)} and is about to appear in Teachers Training Examination, shall be allowed to submit application form for examination to be conducted for Teacher recruitment, and they shall be allowed to appear in the examination, but such candidates have to submit their Teachers Training result before the time fixed by the Commission for publication of the result. Clause - 4 Such candidates have to necessarily submit certificate of passing in the Training to the Commission within three months after the conducting of competition examination for the appointment of Teachers published earlier by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, otherwise recommendation shall not be made." 10. After issuance of the aforesaid corrigendum on 21.9.2007, the Human Resources Development Departme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the answer sheets, the JPSC recommended the names of successful candidates for appointment on the post of Primary Trained Teachers on 6.6.2009 with a condition to verify the testimonials of the candidates prior to issuance of the appointment letters. Several candidates have not submitted their Teachers Training Certificates/B.Ed. certificates and in order to provide an opportunity to those candidates, the JPSC directed them to produce the Teachers Training Certificate/B.Ed. certificate before the JPSC by 30.7.2009. Several candidates submitted their B.Ed. certificates before the JPSC for considering their candidature for recommendation upto the extended date, i.e. 30.7.2009. The review petitioner, who appeared for the examination in December 2008, produced the DPE certificate after the said cut-off date on 3.8.2009. It is evident that on the date of examination conducted by the JPSC, neither the review petitioner possessed the requisite qualification, nor the review petitioner produced the DPE certificate before the cut-off date, i.e. 10.11.2008 or by the extended cut-off date, i.e. 30.7.2009. Considering these aspects, learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of this Court h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 4 of the corrigendum dated 21.09.2007. Certificate was to be submitted on or before 10.11.2008 which the review petitioner did not submit within time. Thus, the ratio of the case of "Mohd. Sajjad Ali" (2008 4 JLJR 184) is not applicable to the case of the review petitioner. We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment dated 08.03.2013 passed in L.P.A. No. 47 of 2013. 14. On behalf of the review petitioner, it was contended that the candidates, namely, Amit Kumar Das, Anil Kumar Rawani, Thakur Prasad Rawani and Angrej Kumar Mandal, have submitted their Diploma in Primary Education Certificate on 1.10.2009, after the cut-off date, i.e. 10.11.2008 and also beyond the extended date, i.e. 30.7.2009 and they have been recommended by the JPSC and while so, the case of the review petitioner has been discriminated by the JPSC in not considering his case. Drawing our attention to the copies of DPE certificates obtained through RTI Act, learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that certificates of Amit Kumar Das and Thakur Prasad Rawani were issued on 20.1.2009 and the same was submitted in the office of JPSC on 1.10.2009, which is much beyond the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by those candidates on 1.10.2009. We are of the view that it does not amount to any discrimination. 18. Assuming that the appointment of those four candidates have been wrongly made, that does not confer any right upon the review petitioner to seek for appointment. In the case of State of U.P & Ors. Vs. Rajkumar Sharma & Ors. [(2006) 3 SCC 330], Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if any appointment has been made by mistake or wrongly, that does not confer any right on another person and Article 14 does not envisage negative equality and if the State committed the mistake, it cannot be forced to perpetuate the same mistake. In para 15 thereof, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "15. Even if in some cases appointments have been made by mistake or wrongly that does not confer any right on another person. Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality, and if the State committed the mistake it cannot be forced to perpetuate the same mistake. (See Sneh Prabha v. State of UP [(1996) 7 SCC 426]; Secy. Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain [(1997) 1 SCC 35]; State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann [(1997) 3 SCC 321];Faridabad C.T.Scan Centre v. D.G., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
