Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court

"Review is not an appeal in disguise and the Court cannot reappreciate evidence or re-hear the matter on merits. 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," Allahabad High Court at Lucknow, in a decision, held that review jurisdiction cannot be exercised to conduct a fresh enquiry into disputed factual claims or to remedy procedural irregularities that do not result in a patent error.

A Single Judge bench of Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar observed that a review petitioner cannot seek a second innings by attempting to re-argue the merits of a writ petition under the guise of pointing out factual omissions.

The case arose from a review application filed by Tapish Sharma, who sought the modification of a previous judgment that dismissed his writ petition regarding recruitment for the post of Assistant Operator (Radio Cadre). The applicant claimed that he was illegally denied consideration under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category despite uploading a valid certificate. He alleged that the court was misled during the initial hearing because a critical page of his EWS certificate was missing from the written instructions provided by the State.

The primary questions before the court were whether the omission of a document from written instructions constitutes an "error apparent on the face of the record" justifying review. The court was also called upon to determine if it could adjudicate the applicant’s claim of a "technical glitch" in the application system within its limited review jurisdiction.

Strict Parameters Of Review Jurisdiction

The Court emphasized that the scope of review is extremely narrow and governed by well-settled principles. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and others (2013) 8 SCC 320, Justice Pawar noted that a review is maintainable only upon the discovery of new evidence that could not be produced earlier despite due diligence, or where there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.

Review Not An Alternative To Appeal

The bench clarified that the power of review is not to be confused with appellate jurisdiction. Drawing from precedents such as Meera Bhanja vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary (1994) 1 SCC 170 and Parison Devi vs. Sumitri Devi (1997) 8 SCC 715, the court reiterated that a review cannot be used to re-appreciate evidence or to correct a conclusion that might be considered "wrong" through a long-drawn process of reasoning.

Procedural Irregularities vs. Substantive Errors

Addressing the applicant’s grievance regarding a missing page in the case file, the Court held that mere omission or non-tagging of a document does not automatically render a judgment erroneous. It observed that for a procedural defect to warrant a review, it must be shown that the omission resulted in a patent error or occasioned a manifest miscarriage of justice.

Court Rejects Plea Of System Error Without Evidence

The applicant contended that a technical glitch in the recruitment portal caused him to be erroneously listed as an "Unreserved" (UR) candidate despite his EWS status. The Court noted that such a plea, raised for the first time in review proceedings without supporting material, cannot be readily accepted. It further remarked that several thousand candidates participated in the process without raising similar grievances.

No Prejudice Caused By Omission Of Documents

Upon summoning the original records and the concerned police official, the Court found that the missing page (page no. 16/17) was indeed part of the original record and was identical to other documents already available to the Court during the writ hearing. Consequently, the Court held that the contention regarding "manipulated" instructions was misconceived and that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner.

Court Refuses To Re-Enter Disputed Factual Enquiries

Justice Pawar observed that the applicant's plea would require the Court to enter into a detailed scrutiny of the nature and contents of the missing page and its impact on the final selection. Such an exercise, the Court held, requires appreciation of facts and evidence beyond the self-evident record and, therefore, travels outside the narrow confines of review jurisdiction.

The High Court concluded that the judgment sought to be reviewed was founded upon overall pleadings, advertisement conditions, and the fact that the applicant had admitted to applying under the Unreserved Category. Finding no manifest or self-evident error, the Court dismissed the review application for lack of merit.

Date of Decision: June 10, 2026