In a recent legal case, the court delved into the intricacies of judicial review concerning a decision on superannuation age. The focus of the case was on the importance of reasoned review orders and the necessity for courts to demonstrate specific errors that warrant a review. This blog post sheds light on the legal analysis by the court, emphasizing the significance of clarity and reasoning in review decisions.
Facts
- The original writ petitioner and respondent in Writ Appeal No. 748/2017 appealed against the order dated 10.11.2020 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court which allowed the review application and reviewed its earlier order.
- The original writ petitioner was granted an extended age of retirement up to 62 years in the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge.
- The University filed Writ Appeal No. 748/2017 challenging the judgment and order dated 23.03.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 17517/2014.
- On 10.11.2020, the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal, upholding the judgment of the learned Single Judge. However, the impugned order recalled the order dated 10.11.2020 and restored the writ appeal to its original file.
- Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2021 allowing the review petition and recalling the order of 10.11.2020, the original writ petitioner has filed the present appeal.
- The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant challenging the order of superannuation and seeking directions to continue him in service till the age of 62 years.
- The University, represented by its Registrar, then filed a review application before the Division Bench of the High Court.
Also Read: Ruling on Circumstantial Evidence in Murder Case
Analysis
- Review jurisdiction can only be exercised if there is an error apparent on the face of the record
- Review order must be reasoned and speaking, not cryptic
- Court must demonstrate the specific error on record that calls for review
- A reasoned order is necessary to pass while exercising review jurisdiction
- Higher forum needs to know the reason for review decision
- The impugned order allowing the review application is cryptic and non-reasoned.
- The order is unsustainable in law.
- The impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Also Read: Challenging Legal Presumptions in Negotiable Instrument Cases
Decision
- The impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court allowing the review application is quashed and set aside.
- The matter is remitted to the Division Bench to consider and decide the review application afresh within three months.
- No expression on the merits of the review application in favor of either party.
- The Division Bench to consider the review application in accordance with the law and on its own merits.
Also Read: Legal Analysis Critique in High Court’s Quashing Order
Case Title: RATANLAL PATEL Vs. DR. HARI SINGH GOUR VISHWAVIDYALAYA (2022 INSC 329)
Case Number: C.A. No.-002057-002057 / 2022
