Patna High Court
Jai Prakash University Chapra Through … vs Md. Nurulain on 1 August, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVIEW No.94 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11309 of 2014
======================================================
1. Jai Prakash University Chapra through Vice Chancellor, Chapra at Saran
2. The Registrar, J.P. University, Chapra (Saran)
3. The Finance Advisor, Jai Prakash University, Chapra (Saran)
4. The Finance Officer, Jai Prakash University, Chpara (Saran)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Md. Nurulain Son of Late Md. Zakaria R/o Mohalla- Nabiganj (Near Dado
Saheb Ka Majar) P.O.-Chapra P.S-bhagwan Bazar, District-Saran
2. The State of Bihar through the Secretary Higher Education, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The B.R.A. Bihar University Muzaffarpur through its vice chancellor.
4. The Registrar, B. R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur.
5. The Principal, Rajendra College, Chapra.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bajarangi Lal, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, AAG-13
For the O.P. No.1 : Mr. Arshad Alam, Advocate
Ms. Anjum Parveen, Advocate
Mr. Kamran Fazal, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 01-08-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the Jai Prakash
University, Chapra/petitioners, learned counsel for the writ
petitioner/opposite no.1 and learned counsel for the other
opposite parties.
2. The petitioners have filed the instant application
praying for review of the judgment dated 1.3.2024 passed in
CWJC no.11309 of 2014. The reliefs sought for by the
petitioners in paragraph no.1 of the review application is
Patna High Court C. REV. No.94 of 2025 dt.01-08-2025
2/11
reproduced herein below for ready reference :-
"i. For Review of the order dated 01-
03-2024 passed by the Honb'le Mr. Justice
Partha Sarthy in C.W.J.C.No.-11309 of 2014 as
the order under review has been obtained by
suppressing material fact before this Hon'ble
court that representation of petitioner for
regularisation of service of the petitioner was
earlier rejected vide order dated 20-05-1996, but
without assailing the said order of rejection the
petitioner managed to continue on the post and
subsequently he filed another representation and
successfully got his service regularised vide
memo no.-3769 (R) dated-15.07.2013 and then
he claimed consequential and financial benefit in
instant writ petition under review.
ii. To Re-hear the writ petition afresh
after giving due opportunity of hearing to the
present petitioners and dismiss the writ petition.
iii. For grant of liberty to the
petitioner University to take appropriate
departmental action against the petitioner in the
facts and circumstances of the present case
especially in view of the fact that the writ
petitioner has succeed in getting the order of
regularisation dated 15-07-2013 in complete
suppression of fact that representation for
regularisation of his service was already rejected
on 20-05-1996
iv. For any other order/ orders to
which petitioner is entitled in the facts and
circumstances of the instant case."
Patna High Court C. REV. No.94 of 2025 dt.01-08-2025
3/11
3. The case of the writ petitioner/opposite party no.1
in brief is that having been appointed as an Assistant on
temporary basis on 24.7.1981, the services of the writ petitioner
not having been regularised, he moved this Court in CWJC
no.7593 of 1994 which was disposed of by order dated
24.1.1996
giving liberty to the writ petitioner to pursue the
matter before the Vice Chancellor.
4. The representation filed by the writ petitioner for
regularization was rejected on 20.5.1996, however on his
representing once again, the University came out with an order
on 15.7.2013 regularising his services on the post of Accounts
Assistant in the Rajendra College, Chapra. The said
regularisation was against the sanctioned vacant post in the
prescribed scale of pay with admissible allowance with
retrospective effect ie from 21.4.1981.
5. Not having been paid the consequential benefits on
regularisation, the writ petitioner moved this Court in CWJC
no.11309 of 2014, which was allowed vide judgment dated
1.3.2024 directing the Registrar, Jai Prakash University to pay
the consequential benefits arising out of the order dated
15.7.2013 (Annexure-9 to CWJC no.11309 of 2014) within a
period of four months. It is this judgment dated 1.3.2024 passed
Patna High Court C. REV. No.94 of 2025 dt.01-08-2025
4/11
in CWJC no.11309 of 2014 of which the instant review
application has been prayed for by the Jai Prakash University.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the University
submits that the fact not in dispute is that pursuant to the order
dated 24.1.1996 having been passed in the writ petitioner’s
earlier case ie CWJC no.7593 of 1994, the representation filed
by the writ petitioner was rejected by the then Vice Chancellor
and communicated to the petitioner on 20.5.1996. It is also not
in dispute that the said order was never challenged and remains
unchallenged till date. It is further submitted that the then
Acting Vice Chancellor not having any authority passed an
illegal order on 15.7.2013 regularising the services of the
petitioner with retrospective effect. The writ petitioner
suppressed the fact that on his representation for regularisation
having been rejected in the year 1996, till what period he was
not in service.
7. Learned counsel for the University further submits
that pursuant to the direction of the Hon’ble Chancellor, a one
man Committee under Hon’ble Mr. Justice Akhilesh Chandra
(retired) conducted an enquiry and gave a finding to the effect
that the writ petitioner’s regularisation as well as the order
relating to payment is highly questionable and needs deep
Patna High Court C. REV. No.94 of 2025 dt.01-08-2025
5/11
scrutiny for further legal action in accordance with law.
8. In response, it is submitted by learned counsel
appearing for the opposite party no.1/writ petitioner that for a
review application to succeed, the review applicant needs to
make out a case under any of the provisions contained in Order
XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No case
whatsoever for review of the order passed in the writ application
has been made out by the University. Further with respect to the
contention of learned counsel for the University that the
petitioner had suppressed the period that he was working,
learned counsel for the writ petitioner refers to Annexure-6/C
and Annexure-6/D to the writ application which are letters
written by the Professor Incharge of the Rajendra College,
Chapra to the Registrar, Jai Prakash University, Chapra
categorically stating therein that the petitioner has been working
in the College since 21.4.1981 without any break and and has
served to the best of the College’s satisfaction. In reference to
the report of the one man Committee which is said to have
conducted an enquiry pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble
Chancellor, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that
besides the report being undated, at best what can be said from
the contents thereof is that only some suspicion has been raised,
Patna High Court C. REV. No.94 of 2025 dt.01-08-2025
6/11
besides the fact that there is no consideration of the case of the
writ petitioner. It would also be relevant to note that the said
Committee had worked on communication from the Governor’s
Secretariat as contained in Letter dated 22.4.2015 and these
facts were very much available to the writ
respondent/University during the hearing of the writ application,
which came to be disposed of on 1.3.2024. Learned counsel for
the University very fairly submits that this report was also on
record in the writ application.
9. It may be observed that it is now well settled that a
review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing
of the case. Though the first prayer of the review applicant is for
review of the judgment dated 1.3.2024, however prayer made in
paragraph no.1(ii) is ‘to re-hear the writ petition afresh……..’.
In the opinion of the Court this is exactly what cannot be done
by the Court. Review of an earlier order can only be done on the
Court being satisfied that material error manifest on the face of
the order has occurred which undermines its soundness or
results in miscarriage of justice.
10. In the case of Col. Avtar Singh Sekhon vs. Union
of India; 1980 Supp. SCC 562, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held as follows :-
“A review is not a routine procedure.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.94 of 2025 dt.01-08-2025
7/11Here we resolved to hear Shri Kapil at length to
remove any feeling that the party has been hurt
without being heard. But we cannot review our
earlier order unless satisfied that material error,
manifest on the face of the order, undermines its
soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. In
Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib, (1975) 1
SCC 674, this Court observed: (SCC p. 675, para
1)
“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.”
11. The scope of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, dealing
with review of a judgment, has been succinctly stated by the
Supreme Court in Parsion Devi & Ors. vs. Sumitri Devi &
Ors.; (1997) 8 SCC 715 as under :-
“It is well settled that review proceedings
have to be strictly confined to the ambit and
scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In Thungabhadra
Industries Ltd. vs. Govt. of A.P. (1964) 5 SCR 174
Patna High Court C. REV. No.94 of 2025 dt.01-08-2025
8/11(SCR at p. 186) this Court opined:
“What, however, we are now concerned
with is whether statement in the order of
September 1959 that the case did not
involve any substantial question of law is
an ‘error apparent on the face of the
record’. The fact that on the earlier
occasion the Court held on an identical
state of facts that a substantial question of
law arose would not per se be conclusive,
for the earlier order itself might be
erroneous. Similarly, even if the statement
was wrong, it would not follow that it was
an ‘error apparent on the face of the
record’, for there is a distinction which is
real, though it might not always be capable
of exposition, between a mere erroneous
decision and a decision which could be
characterised as vitiated by ‘error
apparent’. A review is by no means an
appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous
decision is reheard and corrected, but lies
only for patent error.”
(emphasis supplied)
12. At this stage, it would also be relevant to refer to
the judgment in the case of State of West Bengal & Ors. vs.
Kamal Sengupta & Anr.; (2008) 8 SCC 612, wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court after referring to the provision of
review under Order XLVII of the CPC and a number of other
judgments in the case of Rajah Kotagiri Venkata Subbamma
Patna High Court C. REV. No.94 of 2025 dt.01-08-2025
9/11
Rao vs. Rajah Vellanki Venkatrama Rao; (1899-1900) 27 IA
197, Hari Sankar Pal vs. Anath Nath Mitter; 1949 FCR 36,
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Mar Poulose Anthanasius;
AIR 1954 SC 526, Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. Govt. of
A.P.; AIR 1964 SC 1372, Parsion Devi vs. Sumitri Devi; (1997)
8 SCC 715, Haridas Das vs. Usha Rani Banik; (2006) 4 SCC 78,
Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma; (1979) 4
SCC 389, K. Ajit Babu vs. Union of India; (1997) 6 SCC 473,
Ajit Kumar Rath vs. State of Orissa; (1999) 9 SCC 596, State of
Haryana vs. M.P. Mohla; (2007) 1 SCC 457 and Gopal Singh
vs. State Cadre Forest Officers’ Assn.; (2007) 9 SCC 369,
proceeded to state the grounds for review. Paragraph no. 35 of
Kamal Sengupta (supra) reads as follows :-
“35. The principles which can be culled
out from the abovenoted judgments are:
(i) The power of the Tribunal to review
its order/decision under Section 22(3)(f) of the Act
is akin/analogous to the power of a civil court under
Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
(ii) The Tribunal can review its decision
on either of the grounds enumerated in Order 47
Rule 1 and not otherwise.
(iii) The expression “any other sufficient
reason” appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be
interpreted in the light of other specified grounds.
(iv) An error which is not self-evident
Patna High Court C. REV. No.94 of 2025 dt.01-08-2025
10/11and which can be discovered by a long process of
reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent
on the face of record justifying exercise of power
under Section 22(3)(f).
(v) An erroneous order/decision cannot
be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of
review.
(vi) A decision/order cannot be reviewed
under Section 22(3)(f) on the basis of subsequent
decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench
of the tribunal or of a superior court.
(vii) While considering an application for
review, the tribunal must confine its adjudication
with reference to material which was available at
the time of initial decision. The happening of some
subsequent event or a development cannot be taken
note of for declaring the initial order/decision as
vitiated by an error apparent.
(viii) Mere discovery of new or important
matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for
review. The party seeking review has also to show
that such matter or evidence was not within its
knowledge and even after the exercise of due
diligence, the same could not be produced before
the court/tribunal earlier.
(emphasis supplied)
13. Thus from the facts stated herein above, the
review applicants/Jai Prakash University have not been able to
point out any error apparent on the face of the judgment dated
1.3.2024. They have placed reliance on documents which were
Patna High Court C. REV. No.94 of 2025 dt.01-08-2025
11/11
already available in the writ application and in the opinion of
the Court, in the garb of the review application the review
petitioners are seeking rehearing of the writ application. The
same would also be evident from the prayer made in paragraph
no.1(ii) of the review application.
14. The petitioners have not made out any case for
review of the judgment dated 1.3.2024 passed in CWJC
no.11309 of 2014.
15. The Court finds no merit in the instant application
and the same is dismissed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
avinash/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 04.08.2025 Transmission Date