Facts
The first respondent and another employee had sought regularisation of their services as overhead tank operators.
Source reference: no citationThe Writ Court allowed their claim, and the Division Bench, in W.A. No. 3364 of 2019, directed the District Collector to regularise their services under G.O. No. 242 dated 10 December 2009 and grant the specified service and financial benefits.
Source reference: pp. 3–5The District Collector and Block Development Officer sought review, contending that the employees were not working in sanctioned posts and that Government approval was required for regularisation.
Source reference: p. 2Issues
Whether the contention that regularisation required Government approval because the employees were not working in sanctioned posts disclosed a ground for review under Section 114 and Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC.
Source reference: pp. 2, 5–6Whether the review application could be used to re-argue issues considered in the appeal.
Source reference: pp. 5–6Law Applied
Section 114 and Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure confine review to specified grounds, including discovery of new and important evidence despite due diligence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason analogous to those grounds.
Source reference: pp. 6–9Review is not an appeal or an opportunity to rehear and correct an allegedly erroneous decision; an error requiring a long-drawn process of reasoning is not an error apparent on the face of the record.
Source reference: pp. 7–9The Court applied the principles stated in Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and Another, 2025 INSC 1080.
Source reference: pp. 5–9Reasoning
The Court considered that the review applicants’ sanctioned-post and Government-approval contentions did not establish a review ground.
Source reference: no citationThe relevant issues had been considered when the Division Bench decided the appeal and issued directions for regularisation under G.O. No. 242.
Source reference: pp. 3–5The applicants were, in substance, seeking to re-argue the appeal, which the limited review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order 47, Rule 1 CPC does not permit.
Source reference: pp. 5–9Holding
The Court answered the issues against the review applicants, holding that the grounds raised did not fall within the permissible scope of review and that the application was an impermissible attempt to re-argue the appeal.
It dismissed the review application for lack of merit, made no order as to costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.
Source reference: p. 10Acts & Sections Cited
2 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Code of Civil Procedure, 19082
Original Court PDF
THE DISTRICT COLLECTORvsA K KARUPPANAN
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
