Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Rehear Merits or Substitute Interpretations Absent Patent Error

The petitioners filed a review petition against the High Court’s judgment dated 20.09.2022, which had dismissed their challenge to the selection of Opposite Parties No. 5 to 13 as Assistant Professors in Teacher Education (Geography).

The petitioners contended that the selection was invalid because the candidates lacked "dual Master’s degrees" (Subject MA + M.Ed.) allegedly mandated by the NCTE Regulations, 2014 for two-year B.Ed./M.Ed. programs.

The petitioners had participated in the recruitment process initiated by OPSC Advertisement No. 09 of 2021-22 but were unsuccessful.

They sought a review on the grounds that the Court failed to consider material submissions regarding the mandatory nature of NCTE qualifications and the distinction between standalone and integrated colleges.

1. Whether the judgment under review suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record warranting exercise of jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC.

2. Whether a candidate who participates in a selection process without demur can challenge the eligibility criteria or advertisement after being declared unsuccessful.

Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, which restricts review to cases of patent errors or manifest illegality, excluding "appeals in disguise".

The doctrine of estoppel and acquiescence in recruitment established in Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla.

Academic qualifications and recruitment norms fall within the exclusive domain of expert regulatory bodies and are generally immune from judicial interference unless manifestly arbitrary, as per University Grants Commission v. Neha Anil Bobde Gadekar.

Erroneous decisions must be corrected via appeal, not review, as affirmed in Malleeswari v. K. Suguna.

The Court reasoned that the power of review is an exception to the doctrine of finality and cannot be used to "re-hear" a case or substitute one possible interpretation with another.

The Court noted that the original judgment had already considered the interplay between NCTE Regulations, the Odisha Education Service Rules, 2020, and the recruitment advertisement, concluding then that the State could prescribe additional criteria and that no conflict existed.

The Court found that the petitioners’ arguments regarding the specific necessity of dual degrees for standalone colleges were merely a re-iteration of previously adjudicated points.

The court emphasized that because the petitioners participated in the selection with "open eyes," they were legally estopped from challenging the process post-failure.

Since no "self-evident" error was demonstrated, the court held the petition to be an attempt at a second round of litigation.

The review petition was dismissed as being devoid of merit, and all interim orders were vacated.

The court reaffirmed that dissatisfied litigants cannot use review jurisdiction as a substitute for an appeal.