Page No.# 1/14 GAHC010186772025 2026:GAU-AS:10940 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./27/2026 MRIDUL DEV ADHIKARY SON OF LATE MUKUNDA MOHAN ADHIKARY, BISHNU NAGAR, H.NO.39, HARICHARAN DAS PATH, LOKHRA ROAD, LOKHRA, GUWHATI, DIST- KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM, PIN-781040. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND ENVIRONMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781005. 2:THE CHAIRMAN POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI 781021 3:THE MEMBER SECY. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI 781021 4:UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION DISTANCE EDUCATION BUREAU 35 FEROZE SHAH ROAD NEW DELHI 110001 5:MANOJ SAIKIA S/O REBA KANTA SAIKIA Page No.# 2/14 SANKAR HOUSING COMPLEX SHANTI NIWAS BLOCK NO. 1 FIRST FLOOR NORTH JALUKBARI GUWAHATI 781014 DIST KAMRUP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS VIJAYA LAXMI SINGH, MS P DEB,MS N DEB Advocate for the Respondent : MR. P N GOSWAMI, SC FOREST R-1, DR. A CHAMUAH, SC, UGC, R-4,SC, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD R-2 AND 3,Y N MAHANTA, ADV. – B E F O R E – HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI For the Petitioner : Ms. M. Dev; Ms. N Deb; Ms. P Deb For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S Baruah for R-2 & 3. Mr. Y N Mahanta, Dr. A Chamuah for R-4 Date on which judgment is reserved : N/A Date of pronouncement of judgment : 06.08.2026. Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment ? : No. Whether the full judgment has been pronounced : Yes. Page No.# 3/14 J UDGMENT & O RDER Heard Ms. M Dev, learned counsel for the review petitioner. Also heard Mr. S Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. D Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1; Dr. A Chamuah, learned Standing counsel, UGC for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 as well as Mr. S Baruah, learned Standing counsel, Pollution Control Board for the respondent No. 4. 2. The instant review petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.04.2025 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 5049/2022. 3. In the said writ petition, the review petitioner along with one Umesh Chandra Das had challenged, inter alia, the order dated 22.07.2022, insofar as it related to the promotion of respondent No. 5 to the post of Additional Chief Environmental Scientist. 4. It was the specific case of the petitioners therein that they were senior to respondent No. 5 and were, accordingly, eligible for promotion to the post of Additional Chief Environmental Scientist. It was also contended that, since the issue of equivalence of the M.Sc. degree in Ecology and Environment with the M.Sc. degree in Biological Science had already been determined by the Expert Committee constituted in terms of this Court’s judgment and order dated 06.04.2015 passed in WP(C) No. 912/2011 and WP(C) No. 6329/2013, the respondent authorities ought to have considered the petitioners for promotion to the said post. It was further contended that the petitioners were qualified to be promoted to the said post, having obtained their Master’s Degree in Ecology and Environment from Sikkim Manipal University (hereinafter referred to as SMU) during the years 2002 and 2006, respectively, through the distance education programme, and that the University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as UGC) had accorded post facto approval to SMU to conduct the distance education programme during the said period. 5. This Court, upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon Page No.# 4/14 perusal of the materials available on record, came to the conclusion that the M.Sc. degrees obtained by the petitioners in WP(C) No. 5049/2022, including the present review petitioner, were not valid and, therefore, they were not eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Additional Chief Environmental Scientist. Relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment read as under: “29. Reading of the letter dated 23.09.2022, it appears that UGC has clearly directed and informed the PCB that the SMU is not authorized to open a study center/off campus center beyond the territorial jurisdiction of Sikkim as per the observation of the Apex Court in the case of Prof. Yashpal and another (Supra). It further appears that UGC has also stated in the said letter that they have never granted any approval to SMU to open off-campus study center anywhere. Reading of the subsequent letters issued by the UGC as extracted above, it is also apparent that a university established under a State Act shall operate within the territorial jurisdiction allotted to it under the said Act and in no case beyond the territory of the state of its location and the UGC from time to time has issued directions in this regard to the state universities to follow its policy on territorial jurisdiction in case of offering of programmes through off- campus/study centers and also to close the operation of such centers, if it is operating outside the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned state. 30. That being so, the M.Sc. Degrees in question obtained by the petitioners is not valid. Hence, the petitioners are not eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Additional Chief Environmental Scientist. 30. This brings me to the issue of the judgment of this Court dated 06.04.2015, a perusal of the said judgment indicates that the issue before the Court in the facts of that case is whether M.Sc. in Ecology and Environment is a part of M.Sc. in Biological Science for the purpose of promotion to the post of Deputy Analyst and Analyst. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment & order reads as hereunder: - “26. The question whether M.Sc. in Ecology and Environment is part of M.Sc. in Biological Science or equivalent thereto is a matter to be examined and decided by the experts. It is neither possible nor desirable for the writ court to embark upon such an exercise, which should be best left to be decided by the experts. 27. Therefore, in the light of the discussions made above and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the controversy, it is hereby directed that the Member Secretary of the Board shall place the Matter as to whether M.Sc. in Ecology and Environment is part of M.Sc. in Biological Science or equivalent thereto for the purpose of promotion to the posts of Deputy Analyst and Analyst before the Board for taking an appropriate decision in consultation with the experts. Let the said decision be taken by the Board within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.” Page No.# 5/14 31. Thus, this Court earlier in that case directed the Member Secretary of the Board to place the matter as regard the subject equivalence of M.Sc. in Ecology and Environment with that of M.Sc. in Biological Science before the Board for taking an appropriate decision in consultation with the experts. It appears that thereafter, the Expert Committee constituted by the Board in its 98th Board Meeting concluded that the M.Sc. in Ecology and Environment is a part of M.Sc. in Biological Science for the purpose of promotion to the post of Deputy Analyst and Analyst (re-designated as Senior Environmental Scientist and Chief Environmental Scientist respectively) from Assistant Analyst (re-designated as Executive Environmental Scientist). The aforesaid decision of the Expert Committee was notified by the Member Secretary of PCB vide Office Order dated 06.07.2015, which reads as hereunder: - “Pollution Control Board, Assam Bamunimaidam; Guwahati-21 No. WB/E-101/09-10/225 Dated, Guwahati the 6 July, 2015 OFFICE ORDER Pursuant to the direction issued by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in WP(C) 912/2011 on 06.04.2015 and also in consideration of the opinion of the Expert Committee Constituted by the Board in its 98th Board Meeting on the direction of Hon'ble Gauhati High Court which concluded that "The M.Sc. in Ecology and Environment is a part of M.Sc. in Biological Science for the purpose of promotion to the post of Deputy Analyst and Analyst (re-designated as Senior Environmental Scientist and Chief Environmental Scientist respectively) from Assistant Analyst (re-designated as Executive Environmental Scientist)" the notional promotional order promoting Sri Mridul Dev Adhikary from the post of Asstt. Executive Env. Scientist to the post of Executive Environmental Scientist vide no. WB/E-101/09-10/209 dated 08.10.2013 is made absolute. The Inter-se-seniority of Sri Mridul Dev Adhikary will be treated as per office order no.WB/E112/10-11/24 dtd. 27.06.2010. 27.10.2010 Member Secretary (i/c)” 32. Apparent that the issue, as whether the M.Sc. Degrees of the petitioner obtained through distance mode education from centers located outside the territorial jurisdiction of the state of the concerned university is valid or not for the purpose of promotion to the subject post was not an issue before the Court in the earlier round of litigation. The Expert Committee has also neither deliberated on the same issue while deciding the subject equivalence as directed earlier by this Court. As such, the argument of Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that the Office Order dated 06.07.2015 held petitioner No.2 eligible for promotion up to the post of Chief Environmental Scientist cannot be accepted. 33. This brings me to the next argument of Mr. M Sarma, learned Counsel for the Page No.# 6/14 petitioner to the effect that the respondent authority having accepted the degrees in question of the petitioners as valid while promoting the petitioner to the post of Senior Environmental Scientist, the respondent authorities is estopped in law to declare such degree invalid for promotion to the subject post cannot be accepted inasmuch as illegality cannot be perpetuated. Pertinent that the respondents in the minutes of the 104th Board Meeting, while considering the promotion for the subject post has also taken note that mistake already done cannot be repeated. 34. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the unhesitant view that the impugned order dated 22.07.2022, whereby the respondent No.5 was promoted to the subject post has been taken after considering all the relevant materials and the decision is fair and reasonable. As such, there is no infirmity in the said decision making process. Therefore, the decision of the respondent authorities in promoting the respondent No.5 to the said post of Additional Chief Environmental Scientist cannot be faulted with.” 6. Aggrieved thereby, the present review petition has been filed alleging that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment and order under review, in light of certain documents stated to have been discovered subsequently despite the exercise of due diligence. 7. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that, pursuant to the judgment and order under review, the review petitioner approached the authorities of Sikkim Manipal University on 14.07.2025. The University thereafter issued a certificate certifying that the review petitioner had been admitted to the Master of Science in Ecology and Environment (Distance Mode) in 2004 and had successfully completed the course in 2006. The certificate further certifies that the degree obtained by the review petitioner is protected under Category-I of the judgments dated 26.06.2015 passed by the Sikkim High Court in WP(C) No. 4/2013 and dated 29.06.2015 passed in WP(C) No. 8/2015, which were upheld by the Apex Court by order dated 21.09.2015 passed in SLP (C) No. 26223 of 2015. It is, therefore, submitted that, since the Sikkim High Court has categorically held that the distance education programme conducted by SMU and the degrees awarded thereunder are valid, the judgment under review deserves to be reviewed. Page No.# 7/14 8. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board submits that there is no dispute with regard to the proposition that degrees awarded pursuant to the distance education programme conducted by SMU are valid. However, the case of the review petitioner stands on a different footing inasmuch as he obtained the degree through an off-campus examination centre situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of the University. It is submitted that this Court has already adjudicated upon the said issue and the same cannot be reopened in review jurisdiction unless there exists an error apparent on the face of the record. It is, therefore, contended that the review petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. Likewise, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the UGC submits that the review petitioner, under the guise of a review petition, seeks a rehearing on the issues involved in the writ petition, which is impermissible in the exercise of review jurisdiction. 10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and have perused the materials available on record. I have also carefully considered the judgments of the Sikkim High Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the review petitioner in support of the grounds urged in the review petition. 11. The scope of review of an order passed in exercise of writ jurisdiction is extremely limited. Although the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure do not, in terms, apply to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, the power of review is exercised on principles analogous to those embodied in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code. It is well settled that a review is not an appeal in disguise. A review Court does not sit to re-hear the matter on merits or to substitute one possible view with another. The settled position of law, as reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions, is that review jurisdiction can be invoked only where there exists an error apparent on the face of the record, or where such error is manifest and self-evident, Page No.# 8/14 undermining the soundness of the decision or resulting in a miscarriage of justice. 12. In Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati & Ors., (2013) 8 SCC 320, the Apex Court authoritatively laid down the circumstances in which a review petition is maintainable and those in which it is not. 13. The Apex Court held that a review can be entertained only on the following limited grounds: (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despite the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced earlier; (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; and (iii) any other sufficient reason analogous thereto. 14. The Apex Court further clarified that a review is not maintainable for: (i) rehearing of the matter on merits; (ii) repetition of old and overruled arguments; (iii) improving or supplementing a case by producing material which was available but not produced earlier; and (iv) minor mistakes of inconsequential significance. In other words, review jurisdiction cannot be permitted to be converted into an appeal in disguise. 15. Likewise, in Malleeswari v. K. Sunga & Anr, reported in 2025 INSC 1080, the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated that a review Court cannot re-appreciate the facts or undertake a fresh examination of the merits of the controversy. Only an error of fact or law which is apparent on the face of the record and can be discerned without any elaborate process of reasoning can be corrected in the exercise of review jurisdiction. The relevant observations are reproduced below: “15………..The power of review is different from appellate power and is subject to the following limitations to maintain the finality of judicial decisions: 15.1 The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. 15.2 Review is not to be confused with appellate powers, which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court. Page No.# 9/14 15.3 In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of 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. 15.4 The power of review can be exercised for the correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits specified in the statute governing the exercise of power. 15.5 The review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. Hence, it is invoked only to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors. 16. To wit, through a review application, an apparent error of fact or law is intimated to the court, but no extra reasoning is undertaken to explain the said error. The intimation of error at the first blush enables the court to correct apparent errors instead of the higher court correcting such errors. At both the above stages, detailed reasoning is not warranted. 17. Having noticed the distinction between the power of review and appellate power, we restate the power and scope of review jurisdiction. Review grounds are summed up as follows. 17.1 The ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence is ground available if it is demonstrated that, despite the exercise of due diligence, this evidence was not within their knowledge or could not be produced by the party at the time, the original decree or order was passed. 17.2 Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record may be invoked if there is something more than a mere error, and it must be the one which is manifest on the face of the record. Such an error is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision. An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivable be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. 17.3 Lastly, the phrase “for any other sufficient reason” means a reason that is sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the other two categories.” The above exposition of law leaves no manner of doubt that review jurisdiction cannot be permitted to be invoked as a substitute for an appeal or as a means to re- agitate issues already concluded on merits. Page No.# 10/14 16. Bearing the aforesaid principles in mind, I now proceed to examine the grounds urged in support of the review petition. 17. It appears that, pursuant to the judgment and order under review, the review petitioner, by communication dated 14.07.2025, sought clarification from the Vice- Chancellor of Sikkim Manipal University regarding the validity of his M.Sc. Degree in Ecology and Environment obtained through the distance education mode. The letter dated 14.07.2025 read as under: “To, The Vice Chancellor Date: 14th July-2025 Sikkim Manipal University 5th Mile, Tadong, Gangtok-737102 Sikkim, India Subs Validity of M.Sc degree in Ecology and Environment regarding. Sir/Madain, This is with reference to the subject cited above, I would like to draw few lines for favour of your kind information and needful action 1. That Sir, I passed M.Sc degree in Ecology and Environment under Distance Mode under Sikkim Manipal University in 2007. (Certificate and Marksheet enclosed). That Sir, I was an employee of Pollution Control Board, Assam in Guwahati as a scientist. 2. 3. That Sir, I appeared in the M.Sc degree exam from Guwahati Centre, Assam. 4. That Sit, in October, 2010, I approached to SMU regarding Recognition of my M.Sc degree for further promotion in the office and then Vice Chancellor issued a valuable letter.(copy enclosed). 5. That Sir, at that time I had to file a writ petition in Gauhati High Court for promotion No. WPO/912/2011 and in July, 2015 the Houble Gauhati High Court passed a judgement. (copy enclosed) and accordingly my office had promoted me from the post of EES to SES where the requisite qualification is M.Sc degree and the Board had accepted my M.Sc degree. (Copy enclosed). 6. That Sir, the next higher posts are Addl Chief Environmental Scientist and Chief Environmental Scientist which are 100% promotional post where the requisite qualification is M.Sc degree. 7. That Sir, in July, 2022 the Board had surprisingly promoted my junior one to the next higher post of ACES and again in 2023 to the post of CES by ignoring my M.Sc degree. (copy enclosed). The reason as mentioned in the Minutes of the 104th Board Meeting that I have Page No.# 11/14 done my M.Sc degree from Off-Campuss of SMU which is not valid as per Supreme Court verdict of Prof Joshpal and others in 2005.(copy enclosed). 8. That Sir, I had again file a writ petition vide no. WPC/5049/2022 in Gauhati High Court for justice.” 18. In response thereto, SMU, by its communication dated 15.07.2025, clarified that the distance education degrees offered by Indian Universities are equivalent to campus degrees and are similar to degrees awarded through the formal system of education, as recognised by the University Grants Commission and the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. The said certificate dated 15.07.2025 read as under: “TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN This is to certify that Mr. MRIDUL DEV ADHIKARY bearing Registration Number 2004510384J was admitted to Master of Science Ecology and Environment program (Distance Mode) in 2004 and successfully completed in December 2006. SMU had started offering programs through distance mode in 2001 on a strength of a letter issued by then Chairman of University Grants Commission conveying that all the Universities were permitted to award degrees through their centres all over the country (Annexure-1) Further, Please find attached DEC letter communicating the ex-post-facto recognition of distance education programs offered by SMU upto 28.08. 2007(Annexure-2). The degree conferred to MRIDUL DEV ADHIKARY is protected under the Category I by the orders of Hon'ble High Court of Sikkim dated 26th June 2015 in WP(c) 4/2013 and dated 29th June, 2015 in WP (c) 8/2015. Hon'ble Supreme Court had confirmed both the orders in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 26223 of 2015-dated 21.09.2015 and they are available on the official website of UGC. UGC's letters to Royal Danish Embassy (Annexure 3) and to High Commission of Australia (Annexure 4) state that the degrees granted to students falling in the protected categories enumerated in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, are valid. Distance Education- Degree Offered by Indian Universities are equivalent to campus degree and are similar to degree awarded through the formal system of education as per University Grant Commission (UGC) and Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India. Deputy Registrar- Student Evaluation Directorate of Distance Education Sikkim-Manipal University” Page No.# 12/14 19. Upon a careful reading of the aforesaid certificate, this Court does not find that it supports the contention of the review petitioner that the degree in question, obtained through the distance education programme of SMU by appearing at an examination centre situated outside the territorial limits of the University, has been certified to be valid. 20. In addition to the aforesaid certificates, learned counsel for the review petitioner has also brought to the notice of this Court the letter dated 28.08.2001 issued by the Chairman of the UGC obtained subsequent to the passing of the judgment and order under review (Annexure-9(III) to this petition), to contend that the universities are permitted to award degrees through distance education mode at their own centers in different parts of the country, however, the same being issued prior to the decision of the Apex Court in Prof. Yashpal & Another -Vs- The State of Chattisgarh & Ors., reported in (2005) 5 SCC 420 and the subsequent clarification issued by UGC as reflected in the judgment and order under review, is also of no significance. 21. Similarly, the judgment and order dated 29.06.2015 passed by the Sikkim High Court in Pralhad Dani Chhetri & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., WP(C) No. 8/2015, wherein the distance education programmes conducted by SMU and the degrees awarded thereunder were held to be valid, does not advance the case of the review petitioner. It is to be noticed that the said judgment was carried in appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 26223 of 2015. While the Hon’ble Apex Court declined to interfere with the directions issued by the Sikkim High Court, it expressly clarified that the orders passed in WP(C) No. 4/2013 and WP(C) No. 8/2015 were rendered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of those cases and shall not be treated as precedents in any other matter. Consequently, the review petitioner cannot derive any assistance from the said judgments as binding precedents. Moreover, this Court in review jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate the facts and law, which has already been adjudicated by this Court in the judgment under review. Page No.# 13/14 22. Pertinently, the issue stands concluded by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Sri Bijon Nath v. State of Assam & Ors., passed in W.A. No. 55/2019, wherein it has been categorically held that degrees obtained through study centres established beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned University, without the requisite recognition or approval of the University Grants Commission, cannot be treated as valid. The said decision, being directly on the point in issue, governs the controversy involved in the present case and was duly taken into consideration while rendering the judgment under review. 23. Insofar as the additional documents sought to be relied upon by the review petitioner are concerned, none of them disclose any new or important matter or evidence which would satisfy the requirements of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The communications issued by the Sikkim Manipal University merely reiterate the general validity of the distance education programme and the degrees awarded thereunder. They do not certify, nor do they establish, that the review petitioner had obtained the degree through a study or examination centre lawfully established beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the University or that such degree stood recognized by the UGC notwithstanding the law declared in Prof. Yashpal (Supra). Consequently, the documents relied upon by the review petitioner do not have the effect of dislodging the findings recorded in the judgment under review. 24. The remaining contentions advanced on behalf of the review petitioner are directed against the correctness of the findings recorded in the judgment under review. Those findings were arrived at after considering the pleadings, the materials placed on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the respective parties. The review petitioner, in substance, seeks a re-appreciation of the evidence and a reconsideration of the conclusions already arrived at. Such an exercise is clearly beyond the permissible limits of review jurisdiction. 25. No error apparent on the face of the record has been demonstrated. Equally, no Page No.# 14/14 discovery of any new and important matter or evidence, which despite the exercise of due diligence could not have been produced earlier, has been made out. The grounds urged in the present petition are essentially directed towards reopening and rearguing the case on merits, which is impermissible in law. 26. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that no ground warranting review of the judgment and order dated 03.04.2025 is made out. The review petition, being devoid of merit, accordingly stands dismissed. 27. No order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Pranab Kumar Deka Digitally signed by Pranab Kumar Deka Date: 2026.08.06 19:14:34 +05'30'