Full Judgment
B.C. Varma, J.
1. This is an application for review of our order dated11-11-1987 passed in Miscellaneous PetitionNo. 928 of 1987.
2. The non-applicants responded to an advertisement issued by the State Junior Service Selection Board, Bhopal and faced interview for appointment to the posts of Lower Division Teachers. The Selection Board found them suitable for those posts. Their names were included in the list of successful candidates for Hoshangabad district. About 500 persons were included in Select List. They contended that the list was arranged in order of merit. Out of that list of 500 successful candidates only 232 persons were appointed. The petitioners (non-applicants in this application) in Miscellaneous Petition No. 928 of 1987 contended that although certain posts remained vacant, 95persons not included in the aforesaid list of500 persons were appointed as Teachers. They claimed that those 95 posts should have beenfilled in from among the persons included in that Select List, If that were done, they could well have been appointed. For the reasonsstated in the order dated 11/11/1987 thiscontention did not find favour with the Courtand was rejected. The statement made by theState Government at the hearing of that Misc.Petition was that no posts were then lyingvacant. It was, therefore, not possible for theCourt to issue any direction to appoint the non-applicants against any post of teacher,All the same, this Court made a direction 'that if vacancies occur in future, the petitioners who has been duly selected by theState Junior Service Selection Board, may beappointed against those vacancies.' (Those petitioners are non-applicants in the presentapplication). We, however, did not acceptthe contention advanced by the Government Advocate that the select list became inoperative after the expiry of a period of one year of its publication on 3-3-1986. Thiswas so because nothing was placed beforethe Court to substantiate that contention. Noprovision contained in any Act, Rule orNotification was cited before the Court sayingthat such select list published by the JuniorService Selection Board exhausts itself after the expiry of any specified period. Finally,this Court concluded as under :--
'We would, therefore, issue a direction to the respondents that as and when posts of lower Division Teachers fall vacant in Hoshangabad district/division, such candidates out of the select list including the petitioners who have not yet been appointed, shall be considered and appointed against such vacancies.'
2A. The State has now filed this application with. Annexure R-II, an order issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh in General Administration Department bearing No. C/323/78/3/1 Bhopal dated 21-11-1985 saying that the list of selected candidates published by the Junior Service SelectionBoard shall be in force, only for a period of one year from the date of its receipt in theconcerned office/department. It is stated onaffidavit that although in the return filed inMisc. Petition No. 928 of 87 by the StateGovernment the fact of existence of suchnotification was mentioned, yet no suchnotification was placed before the Court. Thecontention, therefore, is that this Courtcommitted an apparent error while passingthe direction in Misc. Petition No. 928 of1987 on the basis of its finding that thereexists no provision which limits the life of thelist of selected candidates published by theJunior Service Selection Board. It is on thisground that review of our order passed inM.P. No. 928 of 87 is sought for.
3. This application has been vehemently opposed by the non-applicants. Shri V. S. Shroti, learned counsel appearing for the non-applicants, submitted that no case for reviewing our order in Misc.Petn.No. 928/87 is made out because it cannot be said that the Govt. could not trace out the Notification dated 21-11-1985 in spite of due diligence. There is no error in our order sought to be reviewed. And if there is any, it can only be corrected in appeal because the error pointed out cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record Shri Shroti, however, did not question this Court's jurisdiction to review its order passed in a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but added that review is permissible only on grounds contained in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil P.C. or on grounds analogous thereto.
4. Review is a strict legal remedy and not an equitable proceeding. Often it is regulated and controlled by Statute and is limited and confined to such cases as the Statuteenumerates. Although, there must be strict compliance with the statutes authorising reviews, such statutes are remedial and shouldbe liberally construed in order to advance the remedy (See Corpus Juris Secundum Vol. LXXVII). A review may be granted because of mistakes of parties or of their attorneys as well as for mistakes of the Court, Clerk of Court or of the Commissioner in particularproceedings. Mistake consisting an error ofcomputation, or a mistake which is the resultof accident or misfortune may well afford aground for review. Review may also begranted on the ground of newly discoveredevidence or when there is error apparent onthe face of the record. Such an error mayexists 'if of two or more views canvassed onthe point it is possible to hold that thecontroversy can be said to admit of only oneof them. If the view adopted by the Court inthe original judgment is a possible view havingregard to what the record states, it is difficultto hold that there is an error apparent on theface of the record. 'See AIR 1980 SC 674.The Supreme Court in Aribam TuleshwarSharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, AIR 1979SC 1047 pointed out that the power of reviewinheres in every court of plenary jurisdictionto prevent miscarriage of justice or to correctgrave and palpable errors committed by it.This power of review, however, has its ownlimitations. It was observed that this powermay be exercised on discovery of new andimportant matter or evidence which, afterthe exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him atthe time when the order was made. Thispower may also be exercised where somemistake or error apparent on the face of therecord is found It cautioned that review isnot permissible on the ground that the decisionwas erroneous on merits. That certainly isprovince of a Court of appeal and in Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, AIR 1980 SC 674 in themajority judgment delivered by the thenJustice R. S. Pathak and V. D. Tulzapurkar.It is held that the Court may also reopen itsjudgment if a manifest wrong has been doneand it is necessary to pass an order to do fulland effective justice. This court in Bhaiyalalv. Sualal, 1980 MPLJ 789 observed that theomission to consider and apply its mind to amaterial provision of law is an error apparenton the face of the record or analogous to it. ADivision Bench of this Court in M.C.C.No. 309 of 1979 decided on 18-8-1980 :(Reported in 1981 Tax LR1741) held that anorder based upon a law which stood amendedwhen the order was passed but the amendedprovision was not brought to the Court's noticeis liable to be reviewed. It was held thatreview is permissible when the law as amendedwas not placed before the Court for consideration.
5. The operative order in our order under review proceeds on the basis that there exists no provision limiting the time during which the select list published by the Junior Service Selection Board is to remain in force. The applicants did make a reference to some notification by the State Government in that behalf. No such notification was, however, brought to the Court's notice at the time of hearing of that petition. Now such notification has been placed on the record. This Court is bound to consider impact of that notification. Our omission to advert to apply mind to that notification is a mistake which is apparent on the face of the record. It has resulted in manifest wrong. It is necessary to pass an order with due advertence to and after full application of mind to the aforesaid notification. This is necessary in order to do full and effective justice. We have, therefore, no hesitation in accepting this application.
6. The application is allowed. Our order dated 11-11-1987 passed in M.P. No. 928 of 1987 is set aside. The Miscellaneous Petition No. 928 of 1987 (Jaswantpuri and 10 others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and two others) shall now be set down for further hearing.