The Senior Superintendent and Others Vs. M. C. Vijayan Mail Guard, Sub Record Office Railway Mail Service Tv Division, Kayamkulam - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/940117
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Decided OnAug-25-2009
Case Number RA No 37 of 2009 in O.A. NO. 759 of 2006
JudgeHONOURABLE MR. GEORGE PARACKEN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & HONOURABLE MRS. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
AppellantThe Senior Superintendent and Others
RespondentM. C. Vijayan Mail Guard, Sub Record Office Railway Mail Service Tv Division, Kayamkulam
Advocates:For the Applicants: Mr. Varghese P. Thomas, ACGC. For the Respondent: Mr. TCG Swamy, Advocate.
Excerpt:
hon'ble mrs. k. noorjehan, administrative member the respondents in o.a. 759/2006 have filed this application for review of the order of the tribunal dated 2.4.2009 and for admitting the o.a. for further deliberations. 2. in o.a. 759/2006 the tribunal while disposing of the o.a. has directed the respondents (i) to verify whether there was any unfilled vacancy of sc in any of the units in the rms/postal divisions in kerala postal circle notified for the 2003 departmental examination in which the applicant participated. (ii) to explore the possibility of exchange of st point with sc and in the event of any sc point being thus available as a result of exchange with the st point, (iii) to convene a review committee meeting and to award grace marks to the applicant in paper-iii to make him eligible for appointment under relaxed standards. 3. the o.a. was heard and was disposed with specific directions. the respondents are bound to carry out the directions and in case of any difficulty they could have approached the tribunal through an m.a. the original applicant too has filed r.a.30/09 to recall, rehear and review the order which was dismissed. 4. the power to review one's own order was the subject matter of several judicial pronouncements. in ajith kumar rath vs. state of orissa (1999) 9 scc 596), the following observations of the apex court are relevant: "power to review available to an administrative tribunal is the same as has been given tio a court under section 114 read with order 47 cpc. the power is not absolute and is hedged in by the restrictions indicated in order 47. the power can be exercised on the application of a person, on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. the power can also be exercised on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reasons. a review cannot be sought merely for a fresh hearing or arguments or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier. the power of review can be exercised only for correction of a patent error of law or fact which stares in the face without any elaborate argument being needed for establishing it. the expression " any other sufficient reason" under in order 47, rule 1 means a reason sufficiently analogous to those specified in the rule"(emphasis applied) 5. what the tribunal directed was to consider the applicant against unfilled sc/st vacancy of 2003 and award him grace marks, if eligible in accordance with the rules. the respondents should carry out the directions of the tribunal in accordance with the extant rules which would be the end of the matter. 6. in this view of the matter, we do not find any ground for rehearing or review of the order at annexure ra-1. the ra is accordingly dismissed. no costs.
Judgment:

HON'BLE MRS. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

The respondents in O.A. 759/2006 have filed this Application for review of the order of the Tribunal dated 2.4.2009 and for admitting the O.A. for further deliberations.

2. In O.A. 759/2006 the Tribunal while disposing of the O.A. has directed the respondents (i) to verify whether there was any unfilled vacancy of SC in any of the units in the RMS/Postal Divisions in Kerala Postal Circle notified for the 2003 departmental examination in which the applicant participated. (ii) to explore the possibility of exchange of ST point with SC and in the event of any SC point being thus available as a result of exchange with the ST point, (iii) to convene a Review Committee Meeting and to award grace marks to the applicant in Paper-III to make him eligible for appointment under relaxed standards.

3. The O.A. was heard and was disposed with specific directions. The respondents are bound to carry out the directions and in case of any difficulty they could have approached the Tribunal through an M.A. The original applicant too has filed R.A.30/09 to recall, rehear and review the order which was dismissed.

4. The power to review one's own order was the subject matter of several judicial pronouncements. In Ajith Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa (1999) 9 SCC 596), the following observations of the apex Court are relevant:

"Power to review available to an Administrative Tribunal is the same as has been given tio a Court under Section 114 read with Order 47 CPC. The power is not absolute and is hedged in by the restrictions indicated in Order 47. The power can be exercised on the application of a person, on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. The power can also be exercised on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reasons. A review cannot be sought merely for a fresh hearing or arguments or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier. The power of review can be exercised only for correction of a patent error of law or fact which stares in the face without any elaborate argument being needed for establishing it. The expression " any other sufficient reason" under in Order 47, Rule 1 means a reason sufficiently analogous to those specified in the rule"(emphasis applied)

5. What the Tribunal directed was to consider the applicant against unfilled SC/ST vacancy of 2003 and award him grace marks, if eligible in accordance with the rules. The respondents should carry out the directions of the Tribunal in accordance with the extant rules which would be the end of the matter.

6. In this view of the matter, we do not find any ground for rehearing or review of the order at Annexure RA-1. The RA is accordingly dismissed. No costs.