NILIMA NAVEEN DOLE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The review petitioner (for short "the petitioner") seeks review of the order passed by this Court in Smt. Nilima Naveen Dole vs. Union of India and others1 mainly on the grounds that while dismissing the writ petition, this Court reached to the conclusion that the marks, which were obtained by the petitioner, were lesser than that of respondent No.4 and, therefore, the promotion of the petitioner was rightly cancelled. The Court ought to have considered the other aspects e.g. (1) the petitioner had worked for two years on the promoted post successfully; (2) the mistake which was cropped up, should have not been cropped up if due care would have been taken by the Officers of the Department to whom the responsibility of the examination was entrusted; and (3) the Department has not taken any action against those persons who are guilty of committing misconduct. The further contention of the petitioner is that since, the mistake is not attributed to the act of the petitioner, the petitioner should not suffer and the promotion which was made in 2004-05 may be continued.

(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto, it is crystal clear that while passing the order dated 22-02-2012 in WP (S) No.1168 of 2008, this Court after considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties on the basis of the averments made in the pleadings and also having considered the rules, regulations and judicial precedents held as under:-

(3.) THERE is no other ground pointed out by the petitioner showing any manifest error on the record and has not further brought into the notice, any new facts, which could not be produced earlier despite diligent efforts made by the petitioner. It is well settled principles of law that 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 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even in exercise of review jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has not produced any ground for review.