- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17476 RP No. 100145 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA REVIEW PETITION NO. 100145 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU. 2. COMMISSIONER, COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU. 3. REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR, COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, MINI VIDHANASOUDHA, DHARWAD. 4. DIRECTOR, COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) AND: 1. RAJASHEKAR S/O. MURAGENDRAPPA GARAGAD, RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Date: 2025.12.09 11:55:03 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17476 RP No. 100145 of 2025 AGE: 54, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: BANASHANKARI NAGAR, DHARWAD. 2. NIGAPPA S/O. GANGAPPA SAUNSHI, AGE: 58, OCC: SERVICEE, R/O: HEBBALLI VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST DHARWAD. 3. K. S. JIGALUR WOMENN’S COLLEGE, BEHIND RNSHETTY STADIUM, DHARWAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL. 4. HURAKADLI AJJA SHIKSHANA SAMITI, BEHIND RNSHETTY STADIUM, DHARWAD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS THIS RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION XLVII RULE 1 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVIEW PETITION BY REVIEWING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 06.01.2025 PASSED IN WP NO 105526/2016 AND MODIFY THE SAME IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17476 RP No. 100145 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayer: “A. Allow this Review Petition by reviewing the Judgment and Order dated 06.01.2025 passed in W.P No.105526/2016 and modify the same in the interest of justice and equity. B. Pass such other Orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. This Court disposed Writ Petition No.105526 of 2016 in terms of its order dated 06.01.2025. The reasons rendered for the allowing of the petition are as follows: “8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute, link in the chain of events are as narrated. Both these petitioners get appointed as non-teaching staff, as First Division Assistant and Assistant Librarian on 08.06.1992 and 17.08.1992 respectively. The College in which the petitioners were working comes under the ambit of grant from the hands of the State on 28.07.1995 with effect from 01.11.1995. 9. The petitioners were left out. The leaving out of the petitioners is on the score that the petitioners’ initial appointment on 08.06.1992 and 17.08.1992 were contrary to the policy of reservation. The state then realizes i.e., nine years later that the petitioners were correctly appointed and not in violation of the reservation policy as both the posts i.e., First Division Assistant and Assistant Librarian were single cadre post, it is trite that there can be no reservation of a single cadre post. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17476 RP No. 100145 of 2025 10. The State appears to have been in deep slumber for nine years, in realizing the settled principle of law that there cannot be a reservation of a single cadre post. After nine years wisdom dawns on the state and on 02.04.2004 realizing their folly bring these petitioners under the ambit of grant. The petitioners cannot made to suffer for no mistake of theirs, as they were rightly appointed and they were entitled to be bought under the grant from the hands of the State with effect from 01.11.1995, the date on which the others were granted the benefit. 11. It would have been altogether a different circumstance if the petitioners were at fault, they are not in the light of the observations made hereinabove the petitioners cannot be held to be at fault, but the entire folly is at the hands of the State. Therefore, the petitioners who at all times entitled to the benefit granted to the others cannot be denied by the State by a stroke of a pen after nine years, on the ground that the wisdom has downed on them, after nine years. Therefore, the petition deserves to be succeed with the determination of the date of the entitlement of grant to these petitioners at 01.11.1995 and not 02.04.2004. 12. Insofar as the other prayer is concerned, learned counsel would submit that he would work out his remedy after the decision rendered by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.2476/2015.” 3. The State is now before this Court contending that arrears of salary could not have been directed contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Tarsem Singh1. The submission of the State, if accepted, would now amount to re-hearing of the entire matter that had stood 1 (2008) 8 SCC 648 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17476 RP No. 100145 of 2025 disposed on its merit. Therefore, there is no warrant of interference. 4. Learned HCGP now submits that under the threat or in the teeth of contempt, the State had paid the amount and therefore, the amount is to be recovered from 1995, but deducting 3 years. Therefore, the State now wants their order to be substantiated by a review of the subject order. 5. In the light of the order being passed on its merit, entertaining the review petition would amount to rehearing the matter all over again, which the Apex Court in the case of KAMLESH VERMA VERSUS MAYAWATHI2 clearly bars, wherein it is held as follows: “20.1. When the review will be maintainable: (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words “any other sufficient reason” have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar 2 (2013) 8 SCC 320 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17476 RP No. 100145 of 2025 Poulose Athanasius to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule”. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. 20.2. When the review will not be maintainable: (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.” 6. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court, there is no warrant of interference in the case at hand. Review petition lacking in merit stands rejected. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17476 RP No. 100145 of 2025 Ordered accordingly Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE VNP/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 103