Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010164522025 2026:GAU-AS:8686 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./219/2025 MISOR UDDIN SK S/O KAYSAR ALI, R/O VILL. TISTAPAR, P.O. TISTAPAR, P.S. DHUBRI, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOME AND POLITICAL AFFAIRS DEPT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI 6 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI 7 3:THE CHAIRMAN STATE LEVEL POLICE RECRUITMENT BOARD ASSAM REHABARI GUWAHATI 781008 APHC BUILDING Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A SHEIKH, MR. W A SHEIKH,MS F INTAZ Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 17.06.2026 Heard Shri M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Shri T.C. Chutia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri A. Chakrabarty, learned counsel appearing for all the respondents. 2. The instant application has been filed for review of an order dated 10.05.2024 passed by this Court in a bunch of writ petitions including WP(C)/4146/2022. 3. Shri Sheikh, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that while the applicant was allotted two (2) marks for the certificate of experience, he has come across at least 3 instances of candidates from the same Kokrajhar district, who were granted 10 marks. He has submitted that there cannot be two yardsticks for grant of marks for the certificates of candidates belonging to the same district. He submits that this is a sufficient ground for exercising the review jurisdiction. 4. Shri Chutia, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has however submitted that no ground for review is made out and the comparison with the 3 incumbents would not be relevant for the purpose of the present adjudication process. 5. To understand the grounds of review, the order dated 10.05.2024 is required to be carefully perused. The writ petitions were with regard to a recruitment process for filling up posts of Constables under the Assam Industrial Security Force (AISF). One of the primary contentions of the petitioner, in those Page No.# 3/5 cases was that due marks were not given to them for the services rendered by them earlier as Home Guards or SPO’s. The said marks were to be given on the basis of the certificates of previous employment. It transpires that the controversy was mainly related to certain certificates where the duration of service was not specified. 6. It may be mentioned that for every year, a specified marks were to be allotted subject to maximum of 10. This Court had noticed that so far as the district of Kokrajhar was concerned, 2 marks were allotted for such certificates where the duration was not specified and in other districts, less marks or no marks were given. There was a general consensus recorded in the order that a standard practice of allotment of two (2) marks be also done which was taken for a district of Kokrajhar as a standard marking process. 7. As indicated above, Shri Sheikh, the learned counsel for the applicant, has cited 3 examples where the incumbents were granted full 10 marks. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the examples cited of those incumbents would not have any relevance in considering this application for review. It is not the case of the applicant that those incumbents also had certificates where no duration were indicated. In fact, no such certificates were either before the writ Court or in the present application for review. Further, the direction for allotting a standard mark of 2 for each district was not only taken upon general consensus but also from the aspect that it was the district of Kokrajhar which had adopted that practice wherein the other districts had not given any marks or less marks. 9. In any event, the jurisdiction to be exercised by a Review Court is limited.In the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati & Ors., reported in Page No.# 4/5 (2013) 8 SCC 320, the following have been laid 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 Page No.# 5/5 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.” 10. 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). 11. This Court is of the view that the grounds which have been taken would not be sufficient to invoke the review jurisdiction. 12. The application accordingly stands rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant