SC expounds that the provision of review is not to scrutinise the correctness of the decision rendered but rather to correct the

 

The division bench of Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal of the apex court in the case of Pancham Lal Pandey Vs Neeraj Kumar Mishra & Ors held that the provision of review is not to scrutinize the correctness of the decision rendered but rather to correct the error, if any, which is visible on the face of the order/record without going into as to whether there is a possibility of another opinion different from the one expressed.

Brief Facts:

The factual matrix of the case was that the Tripathi Ramroop Sanskrit Vidyalaya is the recognized institution imparting Sanskrit Education upto Uttar Madhyama, i.e., Class I to XII in the state of Uttar Pradesh. The government of Uttar Pradesh decided to take Sanskrit Vidyalaya and Mahavidyalaya on Grant-in-aid List.  Thereafter, the government notified the list of institutions that were taken in the grant-in-aid. One position for the Headmaster and four for Assistant Teachers were approved by the State Government for salary payment from the State Exchequer for the aforementioned school.In a circular, the Principal Secretary of the Government of Uttar Pradesh authorized the payment of salaries to all teachers employed by institutions receiving Grant-in-Aid who were doing so at the time the institution was added to the Grant-in-Aid list. Another Circular outlined how the reservation policy should be applied. In pursuant to these circulars, the Writ Petition was filed before the Allahabad High Court by Satya Prakash Shukla and the Court directed to make payment of the salaries of teachers shall be made based on seniority. 

However, the Assistant Teacher positions were divided by the Director of Secondary Education despite the Joint Secretary's declaration to that effect before the High Court, which also ordered that Neeraj Kumar Mishra, who was nearly five years younger than Pancham Lal Pandey, be paid salary. Thereafter, Pancham Lal Pandey preferred the Writ Petition and the court directed the authorities to declare Pancham Lal Pandey entitled to payment of salary from the State Exchequer. Furthermore, Neeraj preferred the writ petition which was dismissed. The special leave petition was also got dismissed by the court. 

Contentions of the Appellant:

It was contended that the review petition is not maintainable as there was no error in dismissing the special appeal filed by Neeraj Kumar Mishra. 

Contentions of the Respondent:

 

 

It was contended that the revision petition was rightly allowed as there was an error appeared in the order of the division bench in light of Section 9 read with Section 10 of the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate  Colleges  (Payment of  Salaries of  Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. Furthermore, the State Government is only responsible for paying the salaries of teachers and employees in respect of those who have been lawfully appointed with the approval of the Director, and the institution is not permitted to create any new posts of teachers or employees without the Director's prior approval.

Observation of the Court:

It was observed that the Single Judge has granted the writ petition in light of the Joint Secretary's assertion that seniority will determine how much teachers are paid, making the question of teaching irrelevant. The institution's decision to divide the authorized Assistant Teacher positions into subject-based groups is purely an internal decision that imposes no additional burden on the State. It was not unlawful for the institution to have been placed on the Grant-in-Aid list and to have allowed only five people to receive government funding for salaries. The Court did not establish a new position for an assistant teacher at the institution. Therefore, the division bench has not committed any error in dismissing the appeal. 

It was noted,

“The provision of review is not to scrutinize the correctness of the decision rendered but rather to correct the error, if any, which is visible on the face of the order/record without going into as to whether there is a possibility of another opinion different from the one expressed.”

Furthermore, it was added that in granting the review petition, the Division Bench addressed the issue because it was already under the jurisdiction of the special appeal. By adopting a wholly new position regarding the payment of teachers’ salaries according to their subject areas, the Division Bench effectively overturned the decision. Without any error in the earlier ruling being immediately obvious on its face, it amounts to rehearing and rewriting the appeal judgment. Thus, it was obvious that by passing the contested order, the Division Bench went beyond its review authority.

 

The decision of the Court:

Based upon the aforementioned observations, the Court held the impugned order allowing the review was unsustainable in law and was accordingly set aside.

Case Title: Pancham Lal Pandey Vs Neeraj Kumar Mishra & Ors

 Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal

Case No: Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 2023

Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 104 SC

 

Advocate for the Appellant: Adv. Mr. Praveen Chaturvedi

Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Mr.  V.K. Shukla, Ms. Parul Shukla, 

Social media is bold. 

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free. 

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant. 

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!   

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our

journalism free from government and corporate pressure .