KISHORE CHANDRA MOHANTY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE review Petitioner, who was opposite party No. 1 in W.P.(C) No. 224 of 2003 assails the judgment of this Court delivered in the said case as well as W.P.(C) No. 4493 of 2002.

(2.) THE review Petitioner had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act vide O.A. No. 542 of 1995 alleging therein that he had served for more than three years as Inspector of Income Tax and appeared in the Departmental Examination held during June/July 1995, but results were published on 12.2.1996. He was allowed two annual increments with retrospective effect, i.e., from 3.7.1995. During the period from June/July 1995 and publication of result on 12.2.1996, five posts of Income Tax Officer (Group -B) were sanctioned for Orissa Region and in order to fill up the said posts, a Departmental Promotion Committee meeting was convened on 13.10.1995. His case was not considered because the result of the Departmental Examination had not been declared by then. His grievance before the Tribunal was that he having already appeared in the Departmental Examination and the Departmental Promotion Committee having convened the meeting before declaration of the results, his case should have been considered for promotion and kept in sealed cover till publication of the Departmental Examination results. In the alternative, a review DPC meeting should have been convened to consider the cases of those Inspectors of Income Tax who cleared the Departmental Examination and promotions on the basis of recommendation of the review DPC should have been given.

(3.) BEFORE entering into the merits of the review petition, we would like to refer to some judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court defining the scope of review. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivdeo Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., reported in AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1909 held that there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. This question again came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, reported in, 1964 AIR(SC) 1372. In paragraph -11 of the judgment, the apex Court defined the scope of review. The said paragraph is quoted below: