IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
Review Pet. No. 14 of 2021
[Ref: WP(C) No. 518 of 2021]
1. Th. Tongneilal Vaiphei, aged about 45 years, S/o Th.
Khupkhothang Vaiphei, resident of Leimakhong Mission Veng,
P.S. Saitu Gamphajol and P.O. Mantripukhri, District
Kangpokpi, Manipur-795002.
2. Khupkholun Haokip, aged about 51 years, S/o Tongkholet
Haokip, resident of Joseph Colony, Lamphel, P.S. and P.O.
Lamphel, District Imphal West, Manipur-795004.
3. S. Peimichon, aged about 47 years, D/o (L) S. Mapangthei,
resident of Kachai Vilage, P.S. and P.O. Somdal Village,
District, Ukhrul, Manipur-795144.
4. Nianglianching Guite, aged about 46 years, D/o Hauzakhai
Guite, resident of Sorathen, P.S. Phungyar and P.O. Litan,
District Kamjong, Manipur-795145.
5. Ng. Nasiiru Mercy, aged about 35 years, D/o H. Ngaonii,
resident of Phaibuung Khullen Village, P.S. and P.O. Tadubi,
District Senapati, Manipur-795104.
6. Irengbam Anand Singh, aged about 45 years, S/o Irengbam
Ibobi Singh, resident of Khagempali Pankha, P.S. and P.O.
Singjamei, District Imphal West, Manipur-795001.
7. Kongbrailatpam Devajani Sharmee, aged about 38 years, D/o
Kongbrailatpam Guneswar Singh, resident of Uripok
Takhellambam Leikai, P.S. and P.O. Imphal West, District
Imphal West, Manipur-795001.
8. Kshetrimayum Subasini Devi, aged about 54 years, D/o (L)
Ksh. Modhuchandra Singh, resident of Haobam Marak
Keisham Leikai, P.S. Singjamei and P.O. Imphal, District
Imphal West, Manipur-795001.
Review Pet. No. 14 of 2021 Page 1
9. Rajkumar Jamini Devi, aged about 51 years, D/o RK.
Birachandra Singh, resident of Bashikhong Kitna Panung,
Singjamei, P.S. Irilbung and P.O. Singjamei, District Imphal
East, Manipur-795008.
10. Laishram Motilal Singh, aged about 47 years, S/o (L) L.
Gourachand Singh, resident of Brahmapur Laipubam Leikai,
P.S. and P.O. Porompat, District Imphal East, Manipur-795005.
... Petitioner/s
…
- Versus -
1. The State of Manipur, through the Chief
Secretary/Commissioner/Secretary Education (S), Govt. of
Manipur, Secretariat Building, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal,
District Imphal West, Manipur-795001.
2. The Director of Education (S), Govt. of Manipur, Directorate of
Education (S), Keishampat, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur-795001.
........Respondent/s
B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the petitioner :: Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu, Adv.
For the respondents :: Mr. S. Nepolean, G.A. with Mrs. RK
Emliy, Deputy GA
Date of Hearing :: 14.12.2023
Date of Judgment and Order :: 22.03.2024
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
[1] Heard Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. S. Nepolean, learned GA assisted by Mrs. R K Emily,
learned Deputy GA for the State respondents.
Review Pet. No. 14 of 2021 Page 2
[2] The brief facts leading to filing of the instant Review Petition are
that the petitioners were appointed as teachers on contract basis under
various orders starting with the one dated 19.05.2006 and their services
were extended from time to time and were last extended in December, 2008.
On 15.12.2011, a letter was tendered to the Principal Secretary, Education
(S), Government of Manipur by the Director of Education (S), Government
of Manipur for the re-engagement of 772 contract teachers including the
petitioners herein for the period of at least 1 (one) academic year and
verification in regard to 772 teachers including the petitioners was also done.
After a lapse of 8 (eight) years, a notification dated 14.11.2019 was issued
by the State Government whereby necessary orders/documents were called
for submission for re-verification of the 772 contract teachers and in
pursuance of the said notification, re-verification of 546 contract teachers
including the petitioners were done and forwarded to the Commissioner
Education (S), Government of Manipur for necessary action.
[3] On 28.08.2020, a letter was tendered by the Deputy Secretary
(Education-S), Government of Manipur to the Director (Education-S),
Government of Manipur whereby it was requested that the proposal for re-
engagement/regularization of the aforesaid contract teachers be deliberated
upon and comments/view be submitted to the Government for further
examination and consideration. No action was taken with respect to 546
contract teachers till date despite multiple communications having been
tendered.
Review Pet. No. 14 of 2021 Page 3
[4] While the matter is pending for consideration, fresh
appointment has been advertised by the Director of Education (S),
Government of Manipur vide impugned notifications dated 19.07.2021
advertising 923 post of Graduate Teachers and 120 Pre-Primary Teachers
at Govt. Schools on contract basis. During the pendency of the cases, written
examinations
were proposed to be conducted without resolving petitioners’
cases.
[5] Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition being WP(C)
No. 518 of 2021 before this Court for quashing or setting aside the impugned
notification dated 19.07.2021 issued by the Directorate of Education (S),
Government of Manipur and the said writ petition was listed along with
WP(C) No. 53 of 2021. Vide order dated 28.10.2021 passed by this Court in
WP(C) No. 518 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 53 of 2021, both the writ petitioners
were dismissed as there was no merit in the case of the petitioners and that
the petitioners have no vested right to question the impugned notifications.
[6] The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed
between the Government and the All Tribal Student Union (ATSUM)
whereby it is stated that
“the service of the teachers appointed on contract
basis will be utilized until the posts are filled up on regular basis through
normal recruitment of special drive through normal recruitment of special
The said MoU was signed on 20.09.2006, but
drive as the case may be”.
there was a subsequent MoU (herein referred as MoU No.2) whereby mutual
agreement was reached between the representatives of the petitioners
(ATSUM, ANSAM, KSO GHQ)
– and the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Manipur
Review Pet. No. 14 of 2021 Page 4
on 13.08.2019 and MoU No.2 was signed on 18.09.2019 the Chief
Secretary. The MoU No.2 inter-
alia recorded for “Regularization of Contract
Teachers 2006 Batch engaged by Education (S) Department within 2
abiding by and taking necessary action
months”. It is stated that instead of
within the stipulated period of two months, the State Govt. issued
notifications dated 19.07.2021 for conducting written tests for recruitment to
various teaching posts in violation of their own standing instructions. It is also
mentioned in the notifications that pending cases shall be resolved in due
“
course before the commencement of the written examination”.
[7] The review petition has been preferred mainly on the grounds
that- (i) Single Judge was wrong in holding in para 17 of the judgment under
review that nothing has been produced to show that the authorities were
proposed to re-engage the teachers working in various hill districts and also
nothing on record to show that the services of the petitioners has been
extended and utilized by the competent authorities till date; (ii) In para 18, it
has been wrongly held that the contract services rendered by the petitioners
were already replaced by the regularly appointed graduate teachers; (iii)
MoU of 2006 is superseded by MoU of 2019 and the second MoU was not
produced before the Court and was not considered; (iv) In para 20, it was
wrongly held that no evidences were produced and the services of the
contract teachers have not been extended since the year 2008 and the
contract teachers were already replaced by regularly appointed teachers and
so the petitioners had no right to question the notifications impugned in the
Review Pet. No. 14 of 2021 Page 5
writ petition; and (v) the contract teachers were replaced by teachers
appointed on temporary basis but not as regularly appointed teachers.
[8] The respondents filed counter affidavit whereby it is stated that
the petitioners were initially appointed as Science Graduate Teachers and
Arts Graduate Teachers on contract basis for a period of 85 days and their
contractual services were extended from time to time till 2008 and thereafter,
their services have not been extended. It is also stated that since the
contractual services of the petitioners have not been extended from the year
2008, the pleas of the petitioners are that their services have been utilized
by the competent authorities from time to time without any break till date is
absolutely incorrect. During the contractual services of the petitioners, a
notification was issued inviting all eligible candidates for appointment of
Graduate Teachers on regular basis and a duly constituted DPC was held
from 20.10.2006 to 21.10.2006. The result of the said DPC was declared on
19.12.2006 recommending 663 candidates for appointment to the post of
Graduate Teachers in the Department of Education-S and all the
recommended candidates were appointed as Graduate teachers on
19.04.2007. It is stated that the contract services rendered by the petitioners
were already replaced by the regularly appointed Graduate Teachers and
the petitioners have no locus to file the writ petitions and the writ petitions
are liable to be dismissed. It is also stated that the MoU No.2 dated
13.08.2019 with Chief Minister and signed on 18.09.2019 by the Chief
Secretary has been discussed/mentioned in para 6, 7 and 16 of the judgment
and order dated 28.10.2021 under review. The contractual engagement of
Review Pet. No. 14 of 2021 Page 6
the petitioners was discontinued in the year 2008. Vide order dated
19.12.2006, 663 post graduate teachers were declared successful and were
appointed temporary basis vide order dated 19.04.2007 replacing the
contract service of the petitioners by regular appointees. It is further averred
that the petitioners have no right to challenge the recruitment process after
the expiry of 13 years. It is stated that there is no error apparent on the face
of it nor new document and the review petition is not maintainable.
[9] In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioners reiterated that the
Notification dated 18.09.2019 signed by the Chief Secretary, ie, MoU No.2
could not be placed on record due to non-availability at the time of filing of
the writ petition WP(C) No. 518 of 2021. It is stated that the MoU No.2 dated
13.08.2019 notified on 18.09.2019 superseded MoU dated 20.09.2006.
[10] Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu, learned counsel for the review
petitioners pleads two main grounds in the review petition. First, there are
errors apparent on the face of the record and secondly, discovery of new
facts. With regard to the first point, it is submitted that learned Single Judge
was wrong in holding that the contract service of the petitioners was not
extended and their places were replaced by regularly appointed teachers. It
is pointed out that the appointment order dated 19.04.2007 mentioned on
‘temporary basis’ and not as ‘regular’ held in the judgment under review. The
second point is the MoU No.2 inter-alia recording regularization of Contract
Teachers 2006 batch, could not be placed on record of the writ petition and
hence the judgment requires re-consideration.
Review Pet. No. 14 of 2021 Page 7
[11] During the course of hearing and in his written submission,
learned counsel for the petitioners raises the plea of the doctrine of
promissory estoppel [AIR 1986 SC 806; 2023 Livelaw 10 (JK)], doctrine of
legitimate expectation [AIR 1999 SC 1801] and utilizing service without
extension of contractual service was subsequently regularized by this Court
in WA No. 34 of 2021: State of Manipur v. Yaikhom Joykumar Singh. It
is submitted that the impugned order be recalled and the writ petition be
allowed.
[12] Per contra, Mr. S. Nepolean, learned GA submits the MoU No.2
[Annexure R-3 to review petition] is not a new document and was considered
by learned Single Judge in Para 16 of the impugned order. It is clarified that
in letter dated 23.09.2020 [Annexure R-5] sent by the Director, Education (S)
to the Commissioner Education (S), it was mentioned that there was no
extension of contract engagement till date since December 2008 and hence
there is no question of continuous serving beyond contract period. It is
pointed out that temporary basis as mentioned in appointment order dated
19.04.2007 indicates appointment on regular basis in temporary posts. It is
submitted that there are no materials for review within the meaning of Order
47 CPC. All the grounds raised in the review petition are to be taken in an
appeal. It is prayed that the review petition be dismissed being devoid of any
merit.
[13] This Court has considered the materials on record, the
submissions made at bar and case law referred herein. It will be apt to
discuss the scope of review with the help of judgments.
Review Pet. No. 14 of 2021 Page 8
[14] In the case of Inderchand Jain v. Motilal: (2009) 14 SCC 663,
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that power review can be exercise only in case
of gross error apparent of the face of it, discovery of new documents or for
any sufficient reason. Relevant para are reproduced below:
8. An application for review would lie inter alia when the order
suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record and
permitting the same to continue would lead to failure of justice. In
1
Rajendra Kumar v. Rambai this Court held: (SCC p. 514, para 6)
6. The limitations on exercise of the power of review are well
“
settled. The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a
review petition is that the order, review of which is sought,
suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and
permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In
the absence of any such error, finality attached to the
judgment/order cannot be disturbed.”
9. The power of review can also be exercised by the court in the
event discovery of new and important matter or evidence takes
place which despite exercise of due diligence was not within the
knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him at the
time when the order was made. An application for review would
also lie if the order has been passed on account of some mistake.
Furthermore, an application for review shall also lie for any other
sufficient reason.
10. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does
not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is
impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule
that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be
altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not
invoked for reviewing any order.
*1 (2007) 15 SCC 513 : AIR 2003 SC 2095
[15] In the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer:
MANU/SC/1198/2023=
(2024) 2 SCC 362, Hon’ble Supreme Court laid
down the principles to exercise review jurisdiction as follows:
16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that:
(i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or
an error apparent on the face of the record.
(ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure
from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a
substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.
Review Pet. No. 14 of 2021 Page 9
(iii) An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a
process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent
on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of
review.
(iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of
Civil Procedure, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to
be "reheard and corrected."
(v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed
to be "an appeal in disguise."
(vi) Under the guise of review, the Petitioner cannot be permitted
to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been
addressed and decided.
(vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which,
mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require
any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there
may conceivably be two opinions.
(viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment of
a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a
ground for review.
[16] In the case of N. Anantha Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria: (2013)
15 SCC 534,
Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the concept of review as
below:
6. The review jurisdiction is extremely limited and unless
……..
there is mistake apparent on the face of the record, the
order/judgment does not call for review. The mistake apparent on
record means that the mistake is self-evident, needs no search
and stares at its face. Surely, review jurisdiction is not an appeal
in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of the matter on
merits.
[17] From the above case laws, it is clear that the review petition
has a limited scope and the same can be entertained only in case of patent
error on the face of it which does not require any inquiry; on discovery of new
facts/documents which could not be produced before with due diligence; and
for any sufficient reasons. It has been cautioned that review is not an appeal
in disguise and cannot be resorted to as re-hearing of the matter on merits.
Review Pet. No. 14 of 2021 Page 10
[18] In the case in hand, it is pleaded that there were errors in
recording of facts that the contractual services were not extended and MoU
No.2 could not be produced during the writ proceedings. Besides, the
doctrine of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation have also been
raised during the hearing of the review petition.
[19] On perusal of Annexure R-5, ie, letter dated 23.09.2020 sent
by the Director, Education (S) to the Commissioner Education (S), it is clearly
mentioned that the contractual service of the petitioners was not extended
beyond December 2008 and hence there is no error of fact in the impugned
judgment. Moreover, MoU No.2 dated 13.08.2019 notified on 18.09.2019
was specifically mentioned in para 16 of the judgment under review. This
Court does not find any force in the submission of the petitioners that MoU
No.2 was not placed on record. If that be so, there would be no occasion for
the learned Single Judge to discuss about MoU No.2 in Para 16 of the
judgment. The petitioners have miserably failed to disclose any other
sufficient cause to entertain the review petition within the limited ambit of the
provisions of Order 47 CPC. The grounds raised by the petitioners such as
promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation, are to be taken in an appeal
and the same cannot be grounds for review.
[20] In the circumstances, the review petition is dismissed being
devoid of any merit. No cost.
JUDGE
Digitally signed by
KH. JOSHUA
FR/NFR
KH. JOSHUA MARING
Kh. Joshua Maring MARING Date: 2024.04.04
17:18:09 +05'30'
Review Pet. No. 14 of 2021 Page 11