Illegal Termination During Probation, Chhattisgarh HC Declines To Review Judgement

Background Facts

The employee was appointed on probation for a period of two years on 03.07.2017. But she was removed her from the post of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM) on 05.06.2018 before the expiry of the probation period. She was removed on the ground that there were only 14 posts, and 27 additional candidates were appointed. The State Government did not conduct any inquiry before passing the termination order of the employee as she was not regular employees of the State Government, therefore provisions of The Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 did not apply to her.

Aggrieved by the same, the employee filed the writ petition. The court allowed the writ petition and passed an order dated 28.11.2023 revoking her termination and ordered the state to reinstate employee back into the service. Aggrieved by the order, the state filed an instant review petition.

It was submitted by the state that the following facts were not presented to the Court during the argument and disposal of the writ petition by the employee: Clause 4 of the appointment order provided that petitioner was appointed on probation for a period of two years and their services would be regularized only after completion of that period. And Clause 9 stated that if any candidate is appointed on account of mistake, his/her service would be terminated in accordance with law. Further Clause 3 stated that employee's appointments were temporary in nature and services can be terminated by giving one month's prior notice or one month's salary.

It was further contended by the state that if the order dated 28.11.2023 was passed as it is, then state will suffer huge financial loss because then other similarly situated persons will also start claiming the same relief.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the employee that according to Clause 5 of the appointment order, selected candidates will be governed by Chhattisgarh Civil Service (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961. It was further contended that the proper appointment procedure was followed during employee's appointment i.e. advertisement was issued, then employee submitted her form, examination was conducted by VYAPAM, the result was declared, a merit list was prepared and then appointment order was issued.

It was further argued by the employee that no inquiry was conducted before her removal from service. It was submitted that though employee was on probation for a period of two years, she was appointed against sanctioned posts therefore, state was under obligation to conduct an inquiry before passing the termination order.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the court that the employee was appointed to a vacant, sanctioned post following the appointment procedure. Her service was terminated without a hearing or inquiry.

It was further observed by the court that the new points were raised in the review petition by the state. And that the state tried to re-argue the writ petition which was not legally valid. Therefore, the state cannot change their stance or introduce new arguments in the review.

It was observed that the court may review its judgment or order, but application for review shall not be entertained except on the grounds mentioned under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC:

1. If the person is aggrieved by a decree or order where an appeal is either not allowed or not preferred.
2. If new and important evidence was discovered which was previously not available despite due diligence.
3. If there is an error apparent on the face of the record.

The case of M/s Northern India Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (1980), was relied upon wherein the Supreme Court held that a review is not meant to revisit or overturn a judgment unless the original decision is clearly flawed. A party cannot use a review to reargue a case or seek a different outcome out of hope. If once a verdict is given, it should stand as final.

In Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court held that a review cannot be sought merely to revisit and redecide a case. The judgments of the Court are generally final, and reviews are allowed only in case of substantial and compelling reason.

Further the case of Parison Devi v. Sumitri Devi (1997), was also relied upon wherein the Supreme Court held that a judgment can only be reviewed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Such an error must be obvious and not require detailed reasoning to identify. A review cannot be used to reargue or correct an erroneous decision, as it serves a limited purpose and cannot be used as an appeal.

Also the case of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa, was relied upon by the court wherein the Supreme Court clarified that for quashing an order, the error must be apparent on the face of the record. If the error is not obvious and requires detailed reasoning to identify, then it is not considered an “apparent error”.

It was held by the court that the request of the state to quash the order dated 28.11.2023 was erroneous, as the case was decided after thorough consideration of the facts and documents. It was concluded by the court that the state's request was not justified, as no valid ground for review was established and there was no apparent error of law.

With the aforesaid observations, the instant review petition was dismissed.

Case No. : REVP No. 274 of 2024

Counsel for the Review Petitioner : Suyash Dhar Badgaiya, Dy. G.A.

Counsel for the Respondent : Uday Shankar Dewangan, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, Advocate