Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed a review petition seeking reconsideration of its earlier order dated March 22, 2023, which had rejected the petitioner’s claim for retrospective regularization of promotion. The Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar held that there was no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under law. The Court observed that the petitioner was attempting to re-argue the matter on merits, which is impermissible in review jurisdiction. The petition and the connected application were dismissed as devoid of merit.
Facts
The petitioner, a government employee belonging to the Indian Telecommunication Service (ITS), had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) claiming that his promotion to the Junior Time Scale (JTS) should be granted retrospectively from January 1, 2003, and that his subsequent promotion to the Senior Time Scale (STS) should be regularized from January 31, 2011.
The Tribunal had declined to grant such relief, after which the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. On March 22, 2023, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner did not meet the requisite eligibility criteria for retrospective regularization. The Court noted that as per the Recruitment Rules, an officer requires four years of regular service in JTS before being eligible for promotion to STS. Since the petitioner was promoted to JTS only on December 30, 2011, his eligibility for STS arose in 2015, and he was in fact regularly promoted on February 19, 2016.
Undeterred, the petitioner filed a review petition in 2025, seeking review of the March 2023 judgment on various grounds. He argued that he was entitled to promotion to STS at least from 2008 and that his case had not been correctly appreciated.
Issues
- Whether the High Court’s earlier order dated March 22, 2023 contained an error apparent on the face of record justifying review.
- Whether the petitioner could seek to reopen the merits of the case under the guise of a review petition.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner appeared in person and contended that his promotion to the Senior Time Scale of ITS Group-A should be regularized from a date earlier than 2016, as he had been performing higher duties since 2011. He argued that the earlier judgment failed to consider his claim for promotion from 2008 and that the authorities had treated similarly placed employees differently. The petitioner asserted that he had been wrongly denied the benefit of seniority and retrospective promotion despite having fulfilled all functional requirements. He sought that the Court revisit the issue and regularize his promotion to STS retrospectively.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents, represented by counsel, opposed the review petition, arguing that there was no error apparent on the face of record and that the review petition was a disguised attempt to re-argue the matter. They submitted that the Court had already considered all relevant facts in its earlier judgment and that review jurisdiction cannot be used to reopen issues that were finally adjudicated. The respondents emphasized that as per Recruitment Rules, the petitioner became eligible for STS only after completing four years of regular service in JTS, i.e., in 2015, and he was accordingly promoted on February 19, 2016. They argued that no case for interference or review was made out.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reiterated the settled legal position that the scope of review is extremely limited. A review can be entertained only where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important evidence not within the knowledge of the party, or for any other sufficient reason. However, re-arguing a case or seeking a different interpretation of the same facts does not constitute a ground for review.
The Court referred to the reasoning in its previous order dated March 22, 2023, where it had categorically held that the petitioner could not claim regularization of promotion from 2011 because he had not completed the mandatory four years of regular service in JTS, having been promoted to that grade only in December 2011. The Bench found that the petitioner had not pointed out any factual or legal error in that reasoning.
The Court noted that even during the hearing, the petitioner could not show that any of his juniors had been regularized earlier than him. On the contrary, he admitted that some seniors had not been granted the same benefit either, undermining his claim of discrimination.
Precedent Analysis
Although no specific precedents were cited in this short order, the Court’s approach is consistent with established Supreme Court jurisprudence on review powers, such as:
- Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati (2013) 8 SCC 320, where the Supreme Court held that review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to re-argue concluded issues.
- Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000) 6 SCC 224, where it was emphasized that an error apparent must be self-evident and not one that requires elaborate reasoning.
- Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. (2013) 8 SCC 337, which clarified that discovery of a new argument or interpretation does not qualify as an error apparent.
The Delhi High Court’s reasoning aligns with these principles, underscoring the narrow contours of review jurisdiction.
Court’s Reasoning
The Bench observed that the petitioner’s submissions were essentially an attempt to re-argue the case on merits, which is impermissible in review proceedings. The Court reaffirmed its earlier factual finding that the petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria for promotion in 2011 and that his regularization from 2016 was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. The Court further noted that the petitioner’s own pleadings before the Tribunal did not include a prayer for backdating his JTS promotion, which would have been necessary to sustain his claim for retrospective STS regularization.
The judges succinctly held:
“We are of the view that there is no error apparent on the face of the order dated 22.03.2023 passed by this Court to review the same. Hence, the review petition is without any merits and accordingly dismissed.”
Thus, the Court found no ground for interference and dismissed both the review petition and the accompanying application.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court dismissed the review petition filed by the petitioner, holding that the request for retrospective regularization of promotion had already been considered and rejected on sound reasoning. The Court clarified that review jurisdiction cannot be used to reopen issues or present new pleas that were not raised earlier. The connected application seeking permission to file documents was also dismissed as infructuous.
Implications
This decision reiterates the strict limits of review jurisdiction under Indian administrative and constitutional law. Courts will not entertain review petitions that merely seek to revisit findings of fact or law already decided. Government employees or litigants seeking review must establish a clear, self-evident error or a new material fact that could not be previously discovered. The ruling reinforces judicial discipline against repeated litigation and ensures finality in adjudication.
FAQs
1. What is the scope of a review petition before the High Court?
A review petition can be filed only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new evidence, or sufficient reason that could not be raised earlier. It cannot be used to re-argue or reopen issues decided on merits.
2. Can an employee claim retrospective promotion through review proceedings?
No. Once the Court has adjudicated on eligibility and service conditions, review cannot be sought to claim retrospective promotion unless there is a demonstrable error or oversight in the judgment.
3. What happens if a review petition is filed without showing any apparent error?
The Court will dismiss it as without merit, as review jurisdiction is not a substitute for an appeal or second round of litigation.
