Telangana High Court
Kampela Harish vs G. Ramesh on 28 July, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
Review I.A. No.2 OF 2025 IN W.P. No.18558 OF 2025
ALONG WITH C.C. No.1714 OF 2025
COMMON ORDER:
Heard Mr. S. Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government
Pleader representing learned Additional Advocate General appearing
for review petitioners – respondent Nos.2 and 3 in W.P. No.18558 of
2025 and Mr. Masthan Vali Shaik, learned counsel representing Mr.
Vijay Kumar Panuganti, learned counsel for respondent No.1 – writ
petitioner.
2. I.A. No.2 of 2025 is filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 in W.P.
No.18558 of 2025 under Order – XLVII, Rule – 1 read with Section –
114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC‘), to review
the order dated 02.07.2025 in W.P. No.18558 of 2025.
3. Respondent No.1 herein is the writ petitioner in W.P.
No.18558 of 2025. He has filed the aforesaid writ petition to declare
the inaction of the respondents therein in considering his
representation dated 18.06.2025 for Diploma in Electrical and
Electronics Engineering as equivalent to Intermediate as per
G.O.Ms.No.112, dated 27.10.2001 issued by the Secretary, State
2
KL,J
IA No.2 of 2025 in WP No.18558 of 2025 & CC No.1714 of 2025
Board of Technical Education and Training, Telangana at Hyderabad,
as illegal.
4. The aforesaid writ petition came up for hearing on
02.07.2025, on which date, learned Government Pleader for Higher
Education, on instructions, submitted that the Diploma Course studied
by the writ petitioner is equivalent to Intermediate. She has also
placed reliance on the Certificate dated 16.06.2025 issued by the
Deputy Secretary (Academics), State Board of Technical Education
and Training (SBTET), Hyderabad and G.O.Ms.No.11, dated
27.10.2001 filed by the writ petitioner along with writ petition. Thus,
according to learned Government Pleader for Higher Education,
respondent No.1 herein – writ petitioner is entitled to participate in the
Certificate verification and also counselling for admission into the
said two year course.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education
appeared for respondent No.3 in the writ petition submitted that once
the writ petitioner gets admission into the above said two year course
i.e., D.EI.Ed., and completes the same, he is entitled to appear for the
post of Secondary Grade Teacher. Therefore, he has to necessarily
3
KL,J
IA No.2 of 2025 in WP No.18558 of 2025 & CC No.1714 of 2025
study Telugu and English Languages at Intermediate level. The writ
petitioner did not possess the said criterion. Thus, he is not entitled
for admission into the above said two years Diploma Course.
6. Considering the said submission made by learned
Government Pleader for Higher Education, certificate dated
16.06.2025 issued by the Deputy Secretary (Academics), SBTET and
G.O.Ms.No.11, dated 27.10.2001, vide order dated 02.07.2025, this
Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the petitioners herein
– respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the said writ petition to permit the writ
petitioner to produce the required certificates, and on producing the
same, they shall complete the certificate verification and if the writ
petitioner is found otherwise eligible for the aforesaid two year
Diploma Course, they shall grant admission to the writ petitioner
without raising any objection that the aforesaid course studied by the
writ petitioner is not equivalent to Intermediate.
7. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the writ petition filed the present
review application to review the said order dated 02.07.2025
contending as follows:
i) The Telangana Elementary Teacher Education
Institutions/District Institutes of Education and Training (Regulation
4
KL,J
IA No.2 of 2025 in WP No.18558 of 2025 & CC No.1714 of 2025of Admissions into Diploma in Elementary Education (D.EI.Ed.)
Programme through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 2017 (for short
‘Rules, 2017’) were framed by the Government of Telangana vide
G.O.Ms.No.10, School Education (Prog.II) Department, dated
12.04.2017. As per Rule – 4 (iii) (a) of the said Rules, 2017, candidate
shall pass or appear for the Intermediate Examination (Qualifying
Exam) or its equivalent as decided by the DEECET Committee for
appearing at the DEECET.
ii) In the present case, the writ petitioner is not possessing
Intermediate Qualification or equivalent qualification as decided by
DEECET Committee.
iii) The said fact was not brought to the notice of this Court
while passing the order under review. The same is on account of
mistake of learned Government Pleader not bringing to the notice of
this Court.
iv) The DEECET Committee alone is competent for deciding
equivalence of qualification in respect of present Notification and the
letter of TSCHE treating Diploma in Electrical and Electronics
Engineering cannot be considered as the same could be for the
purposes of higher education into Regular Degree or Engineering
5
KL,J
IA No.2 of 2025 in WP No.18558 of 2025 & CC No.1714 of 2025
Courses, whereas, in the present case, the Teacher Education is
governed by NCTE and guidelines framed thereunder. The writ
petitioner is not possessing Intermediate or equivalent qualification as
prescribed by NCTE or decided by the DEECET Committee.
Therefore, he is not qualified to prosecute the D.Ed., or D.EI.Ed.,
Course. The writ petitioner is in possession of the qualification of
Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering and the same is not
equivalent to Intermediate as per NCTE guidelines for conducting of
Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), which is mandatory for any D.Ed., or
D.EI.Ed., holder to pass for being eligible for Teacher Post.
v) G.O.Ms.No.112, dated 27.10.2001 refers to the Diploma in
Commercial and Computer Practice/Diploma, such as in Electrical
and Electronics Engineering, Diploma in Civil Engineer, Diploma in
Mechanical Engineering, Diploma in Electronic and Communication
Engineering etc., conducted by SBTET as equivalent to Intermediate
for admission into BE/B.Tech/BA/B.Com., B.Sc., Course by Osmania
University. The said G.O. was issued only to treat Diploma as
equivalent to Intermediate for the purpose of recruitment, whereas, in
the present case, the writ petitioner is seeking admission into D.EI.Ed.
6
KL,J
IA No.2 of 2025 in WP No.18558 of 2025 & CC No.1714 of 2025
The writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage without
counter of review petitioners – respondent Nos.2 and 3.
8. The writ petitioner filed counter contending that the present
review application is not maintainable. The review petitioners cannot
seek re-hearing of a matter. On receipt of representation from the writ
petitioner along with certificates, matter should have been referred to
the DEECET Committee. After passing the order, they cannot refer
the writ petitioner’s case to the DEECET Committee. On
consideration of the said aspects only, this Court passed the order
under review.
9. Both Mr. S. Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government
Pleader and Mr. Masthan Vali Shaik, learned counsel representing Mr.
Vijay Kumar Panuganti, learned counsel for the writ petitioner made
their submissions extensively.
10. Mr. Masthan Vali Shaik, learned counsel appearing for the
writ petitioner, also placed reliance on the principle laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Murali Sundaram v. Jothibai
Kannan1.
1
. 2023 (2) ALD 68 (SC)
7
KL,J
IA No.2 of 2025 in WP No.18558 of 2025 & CC No.1714 of 2025
11. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, it is relevant to
note that respondent No.1 herein – writ petitioner completed Diploma
in Electrical and Electronics Engineering Course in the year 2015. He
has filed Memorandum of Marks issued by the SBTET. Petitioner
No.1 herein has issued DEECET-2025 Notification inviting the
applications from the candidates for admission into two (02) year
Course i.e., Diploma in Elementary Education (D.EI.Ed.) and
Diploma in Pre-School Education (DPSE). Eligibility criteria is
prescribed in the said Notification, and it says that candidate should
have passed or appeared for the Intermediate Examination (Qualifying
Exam) or its equivalent as decided by the TG DEECET Committee for
appearing at the TG DEECET, 2025. However, she/he should have
passed the qualifying examination by the time of admission.
12. According to the writ petitioner, the Diploma in electrical
and Electronics Engineering which he possessed is equivalent to
Intermediate. Therefore, he is eligible to appear for the said
examination and accordingly appeared. He got 3945 rank. He
attended for certificate verification as per the schedule given by
petitioner No.1 herein and petitioner No.1 did not permit him to
8
KL,J
IA No.2 of 2025 in WP No.18558 of 2025 & CC No.1714 of 2025
participate in the counselling on the ground that he did not possess
requisite qualification i.e., Intermediate or equivalent Course.
13. He has also placed reliance on the Certificate dated
16.06.2025 issued by the Deputy Secretary (Academics), SBTET and
G.O.Ms.No.112, dated 27.10.2001.
14. In the light of the above, it is relevant to note that
G.O.Ms.No.112, dated 27.10.2001 was issued on the clarification
sought by the Chairman, SBTET dated 06.07.2001. In the said letter,
the Commissioner of Technical Education and Chairman, SBTET
stated that Osmania and Andhra Universities have recognized various
Diplomas, such as Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering,
Diploma in Civil Engineering, Diploma in Mechanical Engineering,
Diploma in Electronics and Communication Engineering, Diploma in
Architecture and DAA etc., conducted by the SBTET as equivalent to
Intermediate of Andhra Pradesh for admission into B.E./B.Tech/ B.A./
B.Com/B.Sc. Courses by Osmania and Andhra Universities area
respectively. Therefore, he has requested the Government that a
clarification may be issued in the said regard to all the Collectors
including Collector, Ongole treating the Polytechnic Diploma Courses
9
KL,J
IA No.2 of 2025 in WP No.18558 of 2025 & CC No.1714 of 2025
as equivalent to Intermediate for the purpose of employment also. On
consideration of the said aspects, the Government directed all the
Collectors including the Collector, Ongole, to consider the Diploma
Holders also for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant under the
Scheme of Compassionate appointments, provided the duration of
study of the Diploma is equivalent to or longer than that of
Intermediate. If the aforesaid various Diplomas having duration of
study of such Diploma as equivalent to or longer than that of
Intermediate, are treated as equivalent to Intermediate for the purpose
of recruitment.
15. Thus, the G.O. was issued as a clarification sought by the
Chairman, SBTET. It is only for the purpose of admission into
B.E./B.Tech/B.A/B.Com/B.Sc., Courses conducted by Osmania and
Andhra Universities area respectively. The same is also for the
purpose of employment.
16. As rightly contended by the petitioners herein, the writ
petitioner is seeking admission into Diploma in Elementary Education
(D.DL.Ed.). The Government has framed Rules, 2017 relating to
admission of students into Elementary Teacher Training
10
KL,J
IA No.2 of 2025 in WP No.18558 of 2025 & CC No.1714 of 2025
Institutions/District Institute of Education and Training through
Common Entrance Test vide G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 12.04.2017. Rule –
4 of the Rules, 2017 deals with ‘eligibility criteria for admission’.
Rule – 4 (iii) deals with ‘education qualifications’. Clause (a) says
that the candidate should have passed or appeared for the Intermediate
Examination (Qualifying Exam) or its equivalent as decided by the
DEECET Committee for appearing at the DEECET.
17. As discussed supra, in the present case, the writ petitioner
is possessing Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering in the
year 2015. Therefore, he is not possessing Intermediate qualification
or equivalent qualification as decided by the DEECET Committee.
Without considering the same, the Deputy Secretary (Academics),
SBTET issued certificate dated 16.06.2025. The said aspects were not
brought to the notice of this Court while disposing the said writ
petition and this Court did not consider the said aspects in the order
dated 02.07.2025 in W.P. No.18558 of 2025.
18. It is also relevant to note that the said Diploma Course
completed by the writ petitioner is not equivalent to Intermediate as
per the NCTE Guidelines for conducting Teacher Eligibility Test
11
KL,J
IA No.2 of 2025 in WP No.18558 of 2025 & CC No.1714 of 2025
(TET), which is mandatory for any D.Ed., or D.EI.Ed., Holder to pass
for being eligible for Teacher Post. The said aspects were not
considered by this Court as the same were not brought to the notice of
this Court by learned Government Pleader for Higher Education and
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education.
19. As discussed above, the petitioners herein are seeking to
review the order dated 02.07.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.
No.18558 of 2025. In the light of the same, it is relevant to refer the
scope of review.
20. The Apex Court in Collector of 24 Parganas v. Lalith
Mohan Mullick2 held that new ground cannot be taken in a review
application and Court cannot consider it. In Nehali Panjiyara v.
Shyama Devi 3, the Apex Court held that the new ground raised by the
petitioner cannot be considered in a review application.
21. In Common Cause v. Union of India 4, the Apex Court
held that the ground/point which was not argued in writ petition is
2
. AIR 1988 SC 2121
3
. (2002) 10 SCC 578
4
. (2004) 5 SCC 222
12
KL,J
IA No.2 of 2025 in WP No.18558 of 2025 & CC No.1714 of 2025
deemed it was given up. In N. Anantha Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria 5,
the Apex Court held re-hearing in review application is impermissible.
22. In Kamlesh Verma v. Mayavati 6, the Apex Court held
that mistake apparent on the face of record itself is a ground to review
an order.
23. In Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyauman Singhji
Arjunsinghji 7, the Apex Court held that power to review is not
inherent power and it must be conferred by law either specifically or
by necessary implication.
24. In Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib8, the Apex Court
observed as follows:
“A review of a judgment is a serious step and
reluctant resort to it is proper only where a
glaring omission or patent mistake or like
grave error has crept in earlier by judicial
fallibility. … The present stage is not a virgin
ground but review of an earlier order which has
the normal feature of finality.”
5
. (2013) 15 SCC 534
6
. (2013) 8 SCC 320
7
. AIR 1970 SC 1273
8
. (1975) 1 SCC 674
13
KL,J
IA No.2 of 2025 in WP No.18558 of 2025 & CC No.1714 of 2025
25. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi 9, the Apex Court held that
an error is not self-evident and the one that has to be detected by the
process of reasoning cannot be described as an error apparent on the
face of record for the Court to exercise the powers of review.
26. On consideration of several decisions on review jurisdiction,
in Kamlesh Verma6, the Apex Court summarized the principles for
exercising jurisdiction and the same are as follows:
“20. Thus, in view of the above, the following
grounds of review are maintainable as
stipulated by the statute:
20.1. When the review will be maintainable:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter
or evidence which, after the exercise of
due diligence, was not within knowledge
of the petitioner or could not be
produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of
the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The words “any other sufficient reason” has
been interpreted in Chajju Ram v. Neki [AIR
1922 PC 112], and approved by this Court
9
. (1997) 8 SCC 715
14
KL,J
IA No.2 of 2025 in WP No.18558 of 2025 & CC No.1714 of 2025
in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most
Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius [1955 SCR 520]
to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least
analogous to those specified in the rule”. The
same principles have been reiterated in Union
of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores
Ltd.[ (2013) 8 SCC 337].
20.2. When the review will not be
maintainable:–
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is
not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with
the original hearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the
material error, manifest on the face of the
order, undermines its soundness or results in
miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise
whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and
corrected but lies only for patent error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the
subject cannot be a ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record
should not be an error which has to be fished
out and searched.
15
KL,J
IA No.2 of 2025 in WP No.18558 of 2025 & CC No.1714 of 2025
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is
fully within the domain of the appellate court, it
cannot be permitted to be advanced in the
review petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same
relief sought at the time of arguing the main
matter had been negatived.”
27. In Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab 10, the Apex Court
held that there is nothing in Article – 226 of the Constitution of India
to preclude the 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. But,
there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The
power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and
important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence
was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or
could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. It
may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of
the record is found. It may also be exercised on any analogous
ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision
10
. (1979) 4 SCC 389
16
KL,J
IA No.2 of 2025 in WP No.18558 of 2025 & CC No.1714 of 2025
was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a Court of
appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power
which may enable an appellate Court to correct all manner of errors
committed by the subordinate Court.”
28. As per Section – 114 and Order – XLVII of CPC, a review
application would be maintainable on the following grounds:
i. discovery of new and important matters or evidence which,
after exercise of due diligence, were not within the knowledge
of the applicant or could not be produced by him when the
decree was passed or the order made;
ii. on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the
record; or
iii. for any other sufficient reason.
29. Considering the same and also referring to its earlier
judgments, in S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy 11, the
Apex Court held that the Court’s jurisdiction of review is not the same
as that of an appeal. A judgment can be open to review if there is a
mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that
11
. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1034
17
KL,J
IA No.2 of 2025 in WP No.18558 of 2025 & CC No.1714 of 2025
has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an
error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its
powers of review under Order – XLVII, Rule – 1 of CPC. In the guise
of exercising powers of review, the Court can correct a mistake but
not substitute the view taken earlier merely because there is a
possibility of taking two views in a matter. A judgment may also be
open to review when any new or important matter of evidence has
emerged after passing of the judgment, subject to the condition that
such evidence was not within the knowledge of the party seeking
review or could not be produced by it when the order was made
despite undertaking an exercise of due diligence. There is a clear
distinction between an erroneous decision as against an error apparent
on the face of the record. An erroneous decision can be corrected by
the Apex Court, however, an error apparent on the face of the record
can only be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction. For
reviewing of a judgment as described in Order – XLVII, Rule – 1 of
CPC, i.e., for any other sufficient reason, which phrase has been
explained to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous
to those specified in the rule as held by the Apex Court in Chajju
18
KL,J
IA No.2 of 2025 in WP No.18558 of 2025 & CC No.1714 of 2025
Ram v. Neki Ram 12 and Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most
Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasiu13.
30. In the light of above principle, it is clear that scope of
review is very limited. New fact cannot be considered. Re-hearing in
review application is impermissible. Thus, a review application
would be maintainable (i) on discovery of new and important matter
or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within
knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him when
order was made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on
the face of record; or (ii) for any other sufficient reasons.
31. As discussed above, in the present case, the aforesaid
eligibility criteria is mentioned in the Rules, 2017 framed by the
Government vide G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 12.04.2017. It is also apt to
note that the said writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage
without there being counter of review petitioners herein.
32. The decision relied upon by the writ petitioner in S. Murali
Sundaram1 is in relation to the judgment sought to be reviewed, even
if, erroneous, it cannot be a ground to review the same in exercise of
12
. AIR 1922 PC 112
13
. 1955 SCR 520
19
KL,J
IA No.2 of 2025 in WP No.18558 of 2025 & CC No.1714 of 2025
powers under Order – XLVII, Rule – 1 of CPC. The facts in the
present case are slightly different to the facts of the case in the said
decision.
33. As stated above, the subject writ petition was disposed of at
the admission stage. The aforesaid facts were not brought to the
notice of this Court. Learned Government Pleader for Higher
Education took one view and learned Assistant Government Pleader
for School Education took a different stand. Therefore, this Court
observed that two departments of Government cannot speak in a
different voice and they have to speak in one voice.
34. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and the principle laid
down in the aforesaid decisions, Review I.A. No.2 of 2025 in W.P.
No.18558 of 2025 is allowed. The order dated 02.07.2025 passed by
this Court in W.P. No.18558 of 2025 is recalled. The Writ Petition
No.18558 of 2025 is restored to its original position. The Registry is
directed to list the said writ petition before the Court having roster.
35. As far as Contempt Case No.1714 of 2025 is concerned, the
same is filed by the writ petitioner alleging willful and deliberate
violation of the order dated 02.07.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.
20
KL,J
IA No.2 of 2025 in WP No.18558 of 2025 & CC No.1714 of 2025
No.18558 of 2025 by respondent Nos.2 and 3 therein. As stated
above, the order under contempt is recalled. To punish the contempt
in terms of Section – 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, there should
be willful and deliberate violation of order. In the present case, there
is no violation, much less deliberate violation of the order under
contempt. Therefore, the contempt case has to be closed and
accordingly the same is closed. In the circumstances of the case, there
shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending
in the Contempt Case, shall stand closed.
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
28th July, 2025
Mgr