RA No.26 OF 2012 IN O A No.261 of 2010 on ??-09- 2012

RA No.26 OF 2012 IN O A  No.261 of 2010 on ??-09-  2012

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

BAGALORE BENCH : BANGALORE

REVIEW APPLICATION No.26 OF 2012

IN

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.261 of 2010

TODAY, THIS THE ^............ DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012

HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ... MEMBER (A)

HON'BLE SHRI V. AJAY KUMAR ... MEMBER (J)

C.B. Krishnappa,

S/o late Basappa,

Aged about 41 years,

Post-Graduate Teacher (Chemistry),

Jaahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,

Adilabad, Andhra Pradesh. ... Applicant

(By Advocate Shri B.S. Venkatesh Kumar)

Vs.

1. Union of India, rep. by its Secretary,

Ministry of Human Resources Development,

(Department of School Education and Literacy),

North Block, New Delhi – 110 001.

2. The Commissioner,

Jawahar Navodaha Vidyalaya Samithi,

No.A-28, Kailash Colony,

New Delhi – 110 040.

3. The Deputy Commissioner,

Navodaya Vidyalaya Samithi,

Hyderabad Region,

No.1-1-10/3, S.P. Road,

Secunderabad – 500 003. ... Respondents

O R D E R - (BY CIRCULATION)

Hon'ble Smt. Leena Mehendale, Member (A) :

This R.A. is filed under Section 22(3)(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking review of the order dated 10^th December, 2010, in OA No.261/2010.

2. In the R.A., he has made the following prayer:

"To review the order dated 10.12.2010 in OA No.281/10 and thereafter quash the impugned transfer order dated 21.6.2010 and direct the respondents to transfer the applicant back to Navodaya Javahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Bagalur, Bangalore, and if need be, with a further direction that the present incumbent should be transferred to any other place where vacancy exist."

3. The applicant is seeking this review in OA No.261/2012, by mentioning the grounds at paras 3.1 to 3.4 and these grounds are new facts and this Tribunal cannot go into new facts and grounds in the Review Application.

4. The present review is filed under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The scope and power of this Tribunal under this Section is limited and akin to the power of a Civil Court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. As per the settled principles under the above Section, no new grounds can be urged in a Review Application.

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. State of rissa and Others – (1999) 9 SCC 596 held that "power of review available to the Tribunal under Section 22(3)(f) is not absolute and the same is given to a Court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC". It has further held that "the scope of review is limited to correction of a patent error of law or fact which stares in the face.

6. The crux of the Review Application is that the applicant now wants to bring before us a new document. This is a circular bearing F. No.10-66/ 2010-NUS(SA), dated 19.3.2010, which, in a nut-shell, says that if an erroneous staff is to be transferred, first he has to be given a notice, etc. The applicant claims that he was not aware of this circular at the time of disposal of the OA. Thus, this is a new ground that he wants to bring before us. At this stage we are not inclined to go into the merit of whether his claim as having been transferred as an erroneous staff is correct or otherwise. That stage, in our opinion is over since long. At this stage, we cannot take cognisance. Thus, we find that there is no error apparent on the face of the record or any other ground to review the decision in OA No.261.2010.
7. The OA is therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.

(LEENA MEHENDALE) (K.B. SURESH)

MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)

psp.