Mere Omission Or Misplacement Of Document Page Doesn't Warrant Review Of Judgment Unless It Caused Manifest Injustice: Allahabad High Court

The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that a judgment is not erroneous and subject to review merely because of omission, misplacement or non-tagging of a particular page, unless such omission results in patent error apparent on the face of the record or causes manifest injustice. Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar held,“…mere omission, misplacement or non-tagging of a particular page in a compilation of documents, by itself, would not automatically render the judgment under review erroneous, unless it is further shown that such omission has resulted in a patent error apparent on the face of the record or has occasioned manifest miscarriage of justice. Review cannot be entertained on every procedural irregularity or alleged defect in presentation of papers.”Review applicant-petitioner had applied for appointment to the post of Assistant Operator (Radio Cadre). Before the Writ Court, he contended that despite securing higher marks than the last EWS candidate, he was denied consideration under the EWS category.In review he submitted that his petition was dismissed based on “incomplete and manipulated written instructions” in which his EWS certificate was omitted. The Court observed that the Supreme Court has held that “review is maintainable only in cases of discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despite due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced earlier; mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or any other sufficient reason analogous thereto. It has further been held that review is not an appeal in disguise and the Court cannot reappreciate evidence or re-hear the matter on merits.”The Counsel for State pleaded that the review was an attempt to re-hear the matter and all relevant documents had been placed before the writ Court. It was also argued that the petitioner never applied under the EWS category. The Court held that examining whether the page referred to by the applicant was a part of the original instructions and was deliberately or mistakenly omitted by the counsel required appreciation of facts and evidence which was beyond the scope of review. Further, the Court observed that the page did form a part of the original records. It also observed that the petitioner had applied under the unreserved category and the EWS certificate uploaded by the petitioner was not in the correct format. “Unless the error is manifest, self-evident and strikes one on mere perusal of the record without requiring a process of reasoning, the same cannot be corrected in review proceedings. The plea regarding page no.16, being at best a matter requiring elaborate examination and factual adjudication, does not satisfy the settled parameters for review.”Accordingly, the review application was dismissed. Case Title: Tapish Sharma v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Deptt. Of Home Govt. Of U.P. And 2 OthersClick Here To Read/Download Order

Mere Omission Or Misplacement Of Document Page Doesn't Warrant Review Of Judgment Unless It Caused Manifest Injustice: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

Mere Omission Or Misplacement Of Document Page Doesn't Warrant Review Of Judgment Unless It Caused Manifest Injustice: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers