Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010093832025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./70/2025 RANJIT KUMAR PEGU S/O LATE ARDH SING PEGU, R/O SONAIGULI, NIJARAPAR, HOUSE NO. 146, P.O. SAUKUCHI, HERAMBAPUR PATH P.S. BASISTHA, GUWAHATI 781040, IN THE DIST. OF KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, TRANSFORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006 2:THE PRINCIPAL SECY. GOVT. OF ASSAM TRANSFORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 3:THE DEPUTY SECY. GOVT. OF ASSAM TRANSFORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 4:THE SECY., ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION JAHWARNAGAR KHANAPARA GUUHATI 781022 5:THE DIRECTOR ECONOMIC AD STATISTIC ASSAM, TRANSFORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT DEPTT. GUWAHATI 78102 For the Review Petitioner(s) : Mr. M. Talukdar, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. D.K. Sarmah, Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 & 5. : Mr. T.J. Mahanta, Senior Advocate/Standing Counsel, APSC assisted by Ms. P. Sarma, Advocate for respondent No.4. Page No.# 2/5 – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI 24.10.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. M. Talukdar, learned Advocate for the review petitioner. Mr. D.K. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam and Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior Advocate/Standing Counsel, APSC are present. 2. The review petitioner has questioned the impugned judgment dated 20.03.2025 passed in WP(C) No.6574/2023 solely on the ground that it extinguishes his chance of being appointed as a Director/the highest office in his grade, as he is to retire shortly. 3. The petitioner had also questioned the advertisement dated 25.08.2023 and the Assam Economic and Statistical Service (Amendment) Rules, 1995 on the ground of the Rules being arbitrary and exclusionary and, therefore, the advertisement being bad in law. 4. The facts necessary to be stated here are that the review petitioner was appointed as a Statistical Officer in the year 1992; whereafter he was promoted to the post of Research Officer. He rose to the rank of Senior Research Officer; then joint Director; and later Additional Director with his seniority at Serial No.5 in the Gradation List. 5. In the meantime, an advertisement was issued by the Assam Public Service Commission (in short, APSC) on 25.08.2023 for selection to Page No.# 3/5 the post of Director of Economics and Statistics under the Transformation and Development Department, Government of Assam. 6. The Assam Economic and Statistical Service Rules, 1973 which held the field earlier, provided that the eligibility criteria for the candidates seeking appointment on the post of Director would be Masters in Economics, Statistics and Commerce. However, in the amended Rules of 1995, the stream of Commerce was left out; perhaps for the reason that it was wrongly included in the eligibility criteria as commerce is only a stream and not a subject in particular. 7. The advertisement in question dated 25.08.2023 had been issued much after the amended Rules of the year 1973. 8. The contentions of the petitioner were repelled by the impugned judgment, holding that taking a decision with respect to the eligibility criteria is in the domain of the Government/Recruiting Body in which there ought not to be any unnecessary interference by Courts. 9. So far as constitutionality of the amended Rules of 1973 is concerned, the judgment clearly postulates that the constitutionality of an Act could be questioned only on the grounds of legislative incompetence; or the Acts/Rules being violative of any provisions of the Constitution or for the reasons which have become redundant; or are arbitrary. If it is found that the legislation falls foul of federal distribution of powers and contravenes the fundamental rights then only any interference by the Courts could be made. Page No.# 4/5 10. The constitutionality of an Act/Rule cannot be questioned lightly and that also on the ground of that being to the detriment of an applicant who stands excluded from the zone of consideration because of the amended Rules. There is not an iota of doubt that the amended Rules were within the competence of the State legislature and, therefore, there is the presumption of constitutionality of the Rules in question. Even otherwise, it need not be reiterated that the validity of plenary legislation has to be decided purely as questions of constitutional law. 11. The review petitioner now seeks to re-argue his case under the garb of review without raising any new ground or any newly discovered fact, which he could have known by exercising some diligence. There is no error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment to entertain the present review petition. 12. It is trite that review jurisdiction is very limited in scope and it cannot be treated as akin to an appeal. The primary object of review is to correct patent errors; inadvertent mistakes; and manifest injustice, but not for enabling any party to re-argue his case or invoke the sympathy of the Court. 13. The Supreme Court in M/s. Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. -Vs- Lt. Governor of Delhi :: (1980) 2 SCC 167; Meera Bhanja (SMT) -Vs- Nirmala Kumari Choudhury :: (1995) 1 SCC 170; Lily Thomas & Ors. -Vs- Union of India & Ors. :: (2000) 6 SCC 224 and Kamlesh Verma -Vs- Mayawati & Ors. :: (2013) 8 SCC 320, has clearly laid down that review jurisdiction has to be exercised strictly within the confines of the scope Page No.# 5/5 and ambit of Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the CPC. It is an exceptional jurisdiction which must be exercised sparingly. 14. There is yet another aspect which has to be taken note in the review jurisdiction, namely, the finality of a decision which is an essential feature of the rule of law. 15. We have not found that any provision of law, or an essential fact has been overlooked, or a binding precedent has been ignored in any manner whatsoever. 16. Finding this review petition to be wholly meritless, we dismiss the same. The review petition stands dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant