Supreme Court Sets Aside Cryptic Review Order in Service Matter: Ratan Lal Patel vs. Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya (2022)

Date of the Judgment: March 22, 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 237

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Can a High Court overturn its own judgment simply by stating there is an error without specifying what that error is? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question regarding the review jurisdiction of the High Court in a service matter. The Court held that a review order must be reasoned and must specify the error apparent on the face of the record. This case arose from a dispute over the retirement age of an employee of Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna, with the opinion authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The case began when Ratan Lal Patel, an employee of Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, filed a writ petition challenging his superannuation order. He sought to continue in service until the age of 62. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, through a single judge, allowed his petition, along with other similar petitions, granting the extended retirement age of 62 years.

The University then filed a writ appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court challenging the single judge’s order. The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal and upheld the decision of the single judge. However, the University then filed a review application seeking to recall the order of the Division Bench. The Division Bench allowed the review application, setting aside its earlier order and restoring the writ appeal to its original file. This decision led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The initial writ petition filed by Ratan Lal Patel was allowed by a single judge of the High Court, granting him an extended retirement age of 62 years. The University challenged this decision by filing a writ appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench initially dismissed the appeal, upholding the single judge’s order. Subsequently, the University filed a review application. The Division Bench, through the impugned order, allowed the review application, recalled its earlier order, and restored the writ appeal to its original file. This order was challenged before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court highlighted that the review jurisdiction of a court is limited. It can only be exercised when there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The Court emphasized that a review order must be a speaking and reasoned order, clearly stating the error that warrants the review. The Court did not cite any specific section or statute in the judgment, but it reiterated the well-established principles governing the exercise of review jurisdiction.

Arguments

The appellant argued that the High Court’s order allowing the review application was cryptic, non-reasoned, and non-speaking. The appellant contended that the High Court had failed to specify the error apparent on the face of the record, which is a prerequisite for exercising review jurisdiction. The appellant submitted that the High Court’s order did not meet the required legal standards for a review order.

The respondent did not make any specific arguments in the judgment. The High Court’s order itself was the subject of the appeal, and the arguments focused on the lack of reasoning in that order.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the review application without specifying the error apparent on the face of the record.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. However, the Court relied on the established principles of review jurisdiction, which require that a review order must be reasoned and must specify the error apparent on the face of the record.

Judgment

The Court did not cite any specific authorities, but it relied on the established principles of review jurisdiction.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court was primarily concerned with the lack of reasoning in the High Court’s review order. The Supreme Court emphasized that a review order must be a speaking and reasoned order, clearly stating the error that warrants the review. The Court’s reasoning was driven by the need to ensure that review jurisdiction is exercised within its defined parameters and that orders are not passed arbitrarily.

The Supreme Court observed that, “Merely stating that there is an error apparent on the face of the record is not sufficient. It must be demonstrated that in fact there was an error apparent on the face of the record.” The Court further noted that, “There must be a speaking and reasoned order as to what was that error apparent on the face of the record, which called for interference and therefore a reasoned order is required to be passed.” The Court also stated, “Unless such reasons are given and unless what was that error apparent on the face of the record is stated and mentioned in the order, the higher forum would not be in a position to know what has weighed with the Court while exercising the review jurisdiction and what was that error apparent on the face of the record.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ A review order must be a speaking and reasoned order.
• ✓ The order must specify the error apparent on the face of the record that warrants the review.
• ✓ A court cannot exercise review jurisdiction arbitrarily.
• ✓ The higher court cannot know the reasons for review unless the reasons are specified in the order.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s order allowing the review application and remitted the matter back to the Division Bench of the High Court. The High Court was directed to consider and dispose of the review application afresh, in accordance with law and on its own merits, within the parameters of the review jurisdiction, and to pass a speaking and reasoned order. The High Court was directed to complete this exercise within three months from the date of receipt of the Supreme Court’s order.

Development of Law

The judgment reinforces the established principle that review jurisdiction is limited and must be exercised with caution. The ratio decidendi of the case is that a review order must be reasoned and must specify the error apparent on the face of the record. This judgment does not change any previous position of law but reinforces the existing principles governing review jurisdiction.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Ratan Lal Patel vs. Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya is a significant reminder of the importance of reasoned orders, especially when exercising review jurisdiction. The Court’s decision ensures that High Courts adhere to the established legal principles and do not exercise review jurisdiction arbitrarily. The matter was remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration of the review application, with clear directions to pass a speaking and reasoned order.