Court’s Decision: The Delhi High Court dismissed the review petition filed by the petitioner, imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000 for filing a frivolous petition. The court emphasized that the scope of a review petition is narrow and cannot be treated as an appeal. The court found no “error apparent on the face of the record” and reaffirmed the recruitment decision in favor of respondent no. 3, who scored the highest.
Facts: The case concerns a recruitment process conducted by ISRO for the position of Administrative Officer. Both the petitioner and respondent no. 3 applied and participated in the selection process, which included a written test and interview. Although the petitioner scored higher in the written test, he scored lower in the interview compared to respondent no. 3, who ultimately achieved a higher overall score and was selected.
Issues:
- Whether there was an error in the court’s previous judgment warranting a review.
- Whether the selection process was conducted fairly, as per the petitioner’s claims of irregularities.
Petitioner’s Arguments: The petitioner argued that there were factual errors in the court’s judgment. He asserted that the normalization process used in scoring was incorrect and that the judgment had inconsistencies regarding the selection criteria and scoring. The petitioner contended that the recruitment process favored respondent no. 3 due to alleged biases and procedural flaws.
Respondent’s Arguments: The respondents, representing ISRO, argued that the selection criteria and process were transparent and adhered to the advertised norms. They contended that the petitioner’s claims of irregularities were unfounded, emphasizing that the petitioner only challenged the process after failing to secure the position.
Analysis of the Law: The court examined the scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, which allows review only in cases of “error apparent on the face of the record.” The court reiterated that a review is not a mechanism for re-evaluation of a decision but is limited to patent errors that are self-evident.
Precedent Analysis: The court highlighted previous judgments delineating the boundaries of a review petition, stressing that mere dissatisfaction with the outcome or perceived errors does not constitute grounds for review.
Court’s Reasoning: The court noted that the petitioner had engaged in “cherry-picking” specific statements from the original judgment to argue his case without considering the judgment’s entirety. The court found that the alleged errors were neither factual nor apparent but rather interpretations that did not meet the threshold for review. The court further remarked on the petitioner’s conduct, noting his repeated inappropriate behavior in court.
Conclusion: The review petition was dismissed as devoid of merit and frivolous, with costs imposed on the petitioner. The court underscored that the petitioner knowingly participated in the recruitment process under the given criteria and only raised objections after his unsuccessful attempt.
Implications: This judgment reinforces the limited nature of review proceedings, making it clear that review petitions are not to be used as a means to reargue cases. It serves as a reminder of the importance of professional conduct in court, especially for practitioners appearing in person.
