- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21346-DB RP No. 524 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR V KAMESWAR RAO, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REVIEW PETITION NO.524 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. MAHARANI LAKSHMI AMMANI COLLEGE TRUST (REGD) SCIENCE P.O., MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560012, REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE AND CHAIRMAN SRI. S.S. NAGANAND. 2. MAHARANI LAKSHMI AMMANI COLLEGE FOR WOMEN, SCIENCE P.O., MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560012, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL DR.NAGALAXMI B.N. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SRIRANGA.S, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND AND SRI. SIDDHARTH SRIKANTH, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21346-DB RP No. 524 of 2024 GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, SESHADRI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001. 3. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, SESHADRI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001. 4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, SESHADRI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001. 5. BENGALURU UNIVERSITY JNANA BHARATHI, BENGALURU - 560056, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR. 6. DR. N DONAPPA S/O. NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560079. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA) THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS HAS FILED THE ABOVE REVIEW PETITION UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER XLVII RULE I OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 AND SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO REVIEW THE FINAL ORDER DATED 01.10.2024 PASSED IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 1277/2023 (ANNEXURE-A) AND DISMISS THE SAID APPEAL IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21346-DB RP No. 524 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR V KAMESWAR RAO, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) This review petition is directed against the judgment dated 01.10.2024 passed by this Court in W.A.No.357/2023 and W.A.No.1277/2023, wherein this Court passed the following: “ORDER i) Writ Appeal No.357/2023 filed by the State against the order passed in W.P.Nos.11913-914/2011 does not survive for consideration since the said writ petition has been disposed of as having become infructuous. ii) Writ Appeal No.1277/2023 filed by the State is allowed. iii) Consequently, the order dated 07.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.31891-892/2011 is set-aside. iv) The first and second respondents (in W.A.No.1277/2023) are directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,78,566/- (which is the back wages/arrears of salary excluding Rs.2,31,626/- which is already been paid by the Management) to the fourth respondent as full and final settlement. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21346-DB RP No. 524 of 2024 v) The said sum shall be paid by the first and second respondents to the fourth respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.” 2. We have heard the learned Senior counsel, Sri Sriranga for the review petitioner and learned Government Advocate for the respondents so also perused the entire materials on record. 3. The primary contention of the learned Senior counsel for the review petitioner is that, while dismissing W.A.No.1277/2023 filed by the State, this Court disposed I.A.No.1/2023 summarily without condoning the delay of 335 days in filing the appeal. He further contended that, the order passed in the writ petition proceeded in the premise that prior sanction under Rule 39 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Collegiate Education) Rules, 2003 which was required was not taken by the petitioners before taking action against respondent No.6. Further, in Paragraph No.21 of the order, the date of resolution, communications and the date of dismissal order was wrongly mentioned. According to the learned Senior counsel, the petitioners dismissed respondent - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21346-DB RP No. 524 of 2024 No.6 on 06.11.2010 and not on 30.07.2010 as stated in the judgment. In such eventuality, the review petitioner i.e., respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the writ appeal have obtained necessary sanction/permission from the concerned authority vide letter dated 17.09.2010. Hence, the finding in Paragraph No.21 is an error apparent on the face of the record. Hence, he prays to allow the review petition by reviewing the final order dated 01.10.2024 passed in W.A.No.1277/2023 and to dismiss the writ appeal. 4. The petition is opposed by the learned Government Advocate by contending that though the communication date was mistakenly mentioned in the final order, the same does not change the tenor/conclusion of the judgment, since the dismissal order of respondent No.6 was dated 06.11.2010 and before that, no such prior sanction was obtained by the petitioner i.e., respondent No.1 in the writ appeal. The letter dated 17.09.2010 is only a communication to respondent No.1 granting permission to respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 to take action against respondent No.6 and thereafter to intimate appellant Nos.2 and 3 with regard to the action taken by them. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21346-DB RP No. 524 of 2024 However, the said communication cannot be construed as prior permission as contemplated under Rules 32, 34(1) of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Collegiate Education) Rules, 2003. Hence, he prays for the dismissal of the review petition. 5. We have given our anxious consideration on the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties so also comprehensively perused the materials placed before us. 6. As could be gathered from the order passed in W.A.No.1277/2023, in Paragraph No.21, the date of the communication, resolution and dismissal of respondent No.6 was mistakenly mentioned as 30.07.2010 instead 06.11.2010. Further, it is stated that, before the communication dated 17.09.2010, the dismissal order was already passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2. Though the above dates are wrongly mentioned in the judgment, the same are typographical error and do not change the tenor/conclusion of judgment since the order of dismissal dated 06.11.2010 was passed without prior permission from the appellant authorities. In such - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21346-DB RP No. 524 of 2024 circumstance, there is no substantial and compelling ground which makes it necessary to review the judgment. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs. State Tax Officers reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1406 by referring the case of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 25, held in Paragraph No.10 as under: "10. It is also well-settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so." 8. Further, in the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court by referring Parsion Devi V. Sumitri Devi reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715 held in Paragraph No.9 as under: “9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self- evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21346-DB RP No. 524 of 2024 Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”.” 9. Applying the above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that there is no error apparent on the face of record/judgment passed by this Court in W.A.No.357/2023 and W.A.No.1277/2023, which entails review. 10. Accordingly, the review petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. 11. It is pertinent to observe, while hearing the appeal, this Court was inclined to condone the day of 335 days in filing the appeal. Hence, the appeal was heard and reserved for judgment. However, inadvertently, while allowing the appeal, the delay was not formally condoned by allowing the application for condonation of delay. In such circumstance, in this review petition, we allow I.A.No.1/2023 by condoning the delay of 335 days in filing W.A.No.1277/2023 by accepting the cause - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21346-DB RP No. 524 of 2024 assigned in the affidavit accompanying the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act dated 18.03.2023. This order has to be read as part and parcel of the judgment passed in W.A.No.357/2023 and W.A.No.1277/2023 dated 01.10.2024. SD/- (V KAMESWAR RAO) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV CT:PA LIST NO.: 19 SL NO.: 1