Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010198102025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./132/2026 SAHANUR ALI S/O OMAR ALI, R/O DUMARDAHA PT-III, P.O.- BALAJAN, P.S.- GOLOKGANJ, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN- 783331 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOME AND POLITICAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI-7 3:THE CHAIRMAN STATE LEVEL RECRUITMENT BOARD ASSAM APHC BUILDING REHABARI GUWAHATI- 78100 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A SHEIKH, MR. S A WASI,MS F INTAZ Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 15.09.2026 Heard Shri M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Shri C.K.S. Baruah, learned State Counsel. 2. By the present application, the applicant has sought for review of a judgment dated 10.05.2024 passed by this Court in a bunch of writ petitions, including WP(C)/4156/2022 which was filed by the applicant. 3. To appreciate the contentions advanced, it may be necessary to put the background facts briefly. 4. There was a recruitment drive for appointment of constables of Assam Industrial Security Force (AISF) vide notice dated 13.12.2017 for 145 nos. of posts. Pertaining to the said recruitment, a number of writ petitions were filed including the one mentioned above by the applicant. The grievance was primarily on the aspect of marks given on the “experience”. It was contended by the petitioners including the present applicant that while for every completed year of experience, two marks were to be allotted subject to a maximum of 10 marks, they were not given such marks. In the deliberation, this Court had noticed that so far as the district of Kokrajhar is concerned, a practice was adopted that for Experience Certificate where the duration of experience is not indicated, a uniform mark of 2 (two) would be given to all such candidates. With that consensus, the writ petitions were disposed of on 10.05.2024. As noted above, in the Experience Certificate of the applicant, since the duration was not Page No.# 3/6 reflected, he was to get the benefit of two marks. 5. The applicant has however subsequently discovered the Experience Certificate of one candidate, Monirul Islam issued by the Superintendent of Police Kokrajhar dated 10.12.2017 which did not indicate the duration of services rendered. He has also obtained the mark sheet pertaining to the said candidate and the marks given to him on the said head was the maximum, i.e., 10. The learned counsel for the applicant has accordingly submitted that similar treatment should also be given to the applicant as given to the other candidate, namely, Monirul Islam. 6. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to an order passed by this Court on 15.05.2025 in a subsequent writ petition WP(C)/4916/2024, whereby pursuant to a similar direction, the incumbent in that case was given the benefit of appointment. The said case has been brought to the notice of this Court to buttress the aspect that vacancies are still available where the applicant can be accommodated. He has also submitted that two other persons have also been given such benefits namely Abdus Salim Sk and Dinesh Ch. Ray. 7. On the other hand, Shri Baruah, the learned State Counsel has submitted that the applicant has not been able to make out a case for review of the judgment dated 10.05.2024 and at best, the contention advanced may give rise to a fresh cause of action, wherein the appointment given to Monirul Islam by misconstruing the judgment can be challenged. 8. The rival contentions advanced in the Bar have been duly considered. 9. The powers exercised in review jurisdiction are to be done in a sparing manner and by following the principles laid down in Order 47 read with Section Page No.# 4/6 114 of the CPC. Further, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the powers exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being plenary in nature, such power also inheres the powers of review. 10. In the instant case, the review is sought for qua the judgment dated 10.05.2024 whereby a number of writ petitions have been disposed of. As indicated above, such disposal was on a consensus that for candidates whose Experience Certificate did not indicate the duration, a uniform mark of 2 would be given which was the practice adopted in one of the districts of the State, namely,Kokrajhar. The specific case of the applicant is that despite such judgment, one Monirul Islam has been given 10 marks which is the maximum and the certificate of the said incumbent which has been annexed to the review application dated 20.12.2017 does not indicate the duration. The learned counsel for the applicant has accordingly submitted that the subsequent discovery would make a case for review. 11. While a subsequent discovery may be one of the grounds to invoke the review jurisdiction, such discovery has to have a material relevance in the judgment of which review is sought for. As indicated above, vide the judgment dated 10.05.2024, a uniform 2 (two) marks were directed to be given to all candidates whose Experience Certificate did not indicate the duration of such experience. If there is any aberration of the said direction, the applicant may, at best have a fresh cause of action to espouse challenging the appointment given to any such candidate. However, that cannot be a ground to seek review of the judgment. 12. On the aspect of review in the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati & Ors., reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320, the following principles have been laid Page No.# 5/6 down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court: “20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: 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 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. Page No.# 6/6 (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 soughtat the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.” 13. In the subsequent case of S Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. V Narayana Reddy & Ors reported in (2022) SCC OnLine 1034, a Three Judges’ Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the aforesaid law laid down in the case of Kamlesh Verma (supra). 14. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present grounds urged cannot be termed as grounds for review of the judgment dated 10.05.2024. 15. The application accordingly stands rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant