Review jurisdiction cannot revisit issues already considered absent apparent error or newly discovered facts.

The State of Assam and the Director of Elementary Education sought review of the common judgment dated 21 December 2021, by which several writ petitions challenging the exclusion of candidates from the select list for Assistant Teacher posts in Lower Primary and Upper Primary schools were allowed.

The candidates had applied pursuant to advertisements dated 11 March 2018 and contended that, although they had obtained the TET/D.El.Ed. qualification before commencement of the recruitment process, they had been excluded on the ground that the qualification was not acquired before crossing the prescribed upper-age limit.

The original judgment treated the corrigendum dated 20 February 2021—deleting the requirement that the qualification be obtained before crossing the upper-age limit—as clarificatory and applicable retrospectively.

In review, the State argued that the original judgment incorrectly recorded that the candidates possessed the required qualification and failed to consider that they had crossed the age limit.

The respondents contended that these matters had already been pleaded, considered, and decided in the writ proceedings and therefore could not constitute grounds for review.

1. Whether the original judgment contained an error apparent on the face of the record by recording that the writ petitioners had acquired the TET/D.El.Ed. qualification before initiation of the recruitment process.

2. Whether the alleged fact that the writ petitioners had crossed the upper-age limit constituted discovery of a new fact or any other sufficient ground warranting review.

3. Whether the review petitions could be used to re-argue issues already considered and decided in the original writ judgment.

The High Court’s power to review orders passed in exercise of Article 226 jurisdiction is inherent in its plenary jurisdiction as a constitutional court and court of record under Article 215, including the duty to correct an apparent error in its records, as recognised in M.M. Thomas v. State of Kerala, (2000) 1 SCC 666.

The High Court’s power to review orders passed in exercise of Article 226 jurisdiction is reaffirmed in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Pratibha Industries Ltd., (2019) 3 SCC 203.

However, review jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly and in accordance with the principles and spirit of the Code of Civil Procedure; it is confined principally to an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important matter which despite due diligence was not within the applicant’s knowledge, or another sufficient reason.

Review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be invoked merely to reappreciate issues already adjudicated.

The Court held that the State’s first contention did not disclose an apparent error because the original judgment had expressly considered and recorded that all candidates had acquired the TET/D.El.Ed. qualification before initiation of the recruitment process.

The original judgment had also addressed the relevance of the age-related qualification requirement and had found that the corrigendum dated 20 February 2021 was clarificatory, thereby relating back to the earlier notification.

The State’s second contention—that the candidates had crossed the upper-age limit—was neither a subsequently discovered fact nor a matter omitted from consideration; it had already been raised and dealt with in the original proceedings.

Reconsideration of those conclusions would effectively amount to appellate review, which is impermissible in review jurisdiction.

All the review applications, including Review Petition No. 121/2023 and the connected petitions, were rejected and dismissed.