Sudin R. Karpe Vs. State of Goa & Ors.
EmailConstitution
Articles 14, 16 with CPC, 1908 – Order 47, rule 1 – Review – Scope – Promotion challenged on grounds that it was made under rules, not in force – Challenger’s case for promotion allowed to be considered under new rules – Also allowed to represent after promotion for earlier date to the post, if a case is made out – Later, a writ by another person filed, challenging recruitment made to the post – Also, a review in earlier writ – Both taken together and allowed on grounds that statement about availability of vacant post was factually wrong – Neither the case of promotee (appellant) considered nor his appointment found wrong. Held that on facts, scope of review was limited. Case of appellant could not be re-examined. That part of orders set aside. (Para 3)
1. A writ petition no. 386/1991 was filed by one Madhusudan L. Thakur challenging the promotion of the appellant before us who was respondent no. 4 in the writ petition contending that he had been promoted with reference to the recruitment rule which was not in force till 9.4.1992.
2. The High Court however, disposed of the writ petition stating that the case of the said Madhusudan L. Thakur could be considered with reference to the amended rules which came about in the year 1994, within four months from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order and if he is promoted, he could make a representation giving him an earlier date to the post of assistant local health authority, if he is able to make out a case in that regard. No other relief was granted.
3. Thereafter, another writ petition no. 185/1992 had been filed by one Iva Fernandes challenging the recruitment made to the post of assistant local health authority. A review petition filed against the order made in earlier writ petition i.e. 386/1991 and the writ petition no. 185/1992 were taken up together and it was noticed therein that on behalf of the government, a statement was made that one more post was available which was factually erroneous and the government, therefore, sought for review of the matter. The High Court stated that the statement made was factually wrong and, therefore, allowed the writ and the review petitions. But the basis upon which the writ petition no. 386/1991 was originally disposed of was that another post was available and for that post, the petitioner therein could be considered and if found fit he could be promoted or appointed, while the case of the appellant was not considered nor was any finding given that the appointment of the appellant was in any way wrong. In that view of the matter, the scope of the review petition was very much limited and there is no question of review of the order insofar as the appellant was concerned. In that view of the matter, we do not think the High Court was justified in re-examining the case insofar as appellant is concerned. That part of the order made by the High Court is plainly wrong and to that extent is set aside. In other respects, the order of the High Court shall remain undisturbed. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
