Court rules procedural irregularities insufficient for review; affirms original decision based on candidate's application under Unreserved Category
In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar, dismissed a review application filed by Tapish Sharma in the case of "Tapish Sharma v. State of U.P. and Others." The applicant sought a review of the court's decision dated April 21, 2025, which dismissed his writ petition concerning his appointment under the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category for the post of Assistant Operator (Radio Cadre).
The applicant contended that he had applied under the EWS category, uploading a valid certificate, but was erroneously not considered for reservation benefits. He argued that the court's earlier decision was based on incomplete information, alleging that a page containing his EWS certificate was omitted during the initial hearing, leading to a factual error in the judgment.
However, the State, represented by Chief Standing Counsel Ms. Deepshikha, countered these claims, stating that the applicant had originally applied under the Unreserved (UR) category and that the EWS certificate was not in the prescribed format. The court observed that the review jurisdiction cannot be invoked for reappreciating evidence or rehearing the matter on merits, reiterating that procedural irregularities do not warrant a review unless they result in a manifest error or miscarriage of justice.
The court also noted that the missing page alleged by the applicant was found in the original records and did not prejudice the applicant. Justice Pawar highlighted the Supreme Court's principles that review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to reargue the matter or reassess evidence.
Ultimately, the court concluded that no error apparent on the face of the record was present to justify a review, and the review application was dismissed, reaffirming the original decision.
Bottom line:-
Review jurisdiction cannot be invoked for reappreciating evidence or re-hearing the matter on merits. Alleged procedural irregularities or missing documents do not constitute sufficient grounds for review unless they result in a manifest error apparent on the face of the record or cause miscarriage of justice.
Statutory provision(s):
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order XLVII, Rule 1
Tapish Sharma v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc id # 2920969
