Case Note & Summary
The dispute originated from Tripathi Ramroop Sanskrit Vidyalaya, a recognized institution imparting Sanskrit education in Uttar Pradesh, which was granted permanent recognition in 1999 and included in the government's grant-in-aid list in 2015. The State Government sanctioned five posts for salary payment from the State Exchequer. Following government circulars regarding salary payment and reservation policy, litigation ensued when the Director of Secondary Education bifurcated assistant teacher posts in 2017, directing salary payment to a junior teacher over a senior one. The senior teacher, Pancham Lal Pandey, successfully challenged this order before the High Court, which quashed the bifurcation order and directed authorities to declare him entitled to salary payment. The junior teacher, Neeraj Kumar Mishra, and the State Government filed special appeals, which were dismissed. After the Supreme Court dismissed special leave petitions with clarification that State liability was limited to sanctioned posts, Mishra filed a review application against the dismissal of his special appeal. The Division Bench allowed this review through the impugned order dated 05.02.2021. The core legal issues were whether the Division Bench exceeded its review jurisdiction and whether the writ court's order directing seniority-based salary payment was legal. The appellant argued that the review was not maintainable as there was no error apparent on the face of the record, while the respondent defended the review order, contending that the writ court had manifestly erred in law. The Supreme Court analyzed that the review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record, not for rehearing cases or considering different opinions. The Court found that the Division Bench had effectively reversed its earlier decision by introducing a new subject-wise salary payment stand, which constituted exceeding review jurisdiction. Regarding the substantive issue, the Court held that the institution was taken on grant-in-aid with five posts in order of seniority, and permitting salary payment to these five persons did not create new posts or impose extra burden on the State. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned review order, and restored the earlier position with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Grant-in-Aid Institutions - Teacher Salary Payment - Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 - Dispute involved payment of salary to teachers in a Sanskrit Vidyalaya taken under grant-in-aid list - Court held that institution was taken on grant-in-aid list with a Headmaster and four Assistant Teachers in order of seniority, and permitting only five persons to receive salary from government funds was not illegal - No creation of new posts occurred (Paras 13-14). B) Civil Procedure - Review Jurisdiction - Error Apparent on Face of Record - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Division Bench allowed review petition and virtually reversed its earlier decision by taking a new stand for subject-wise salary payment - Supreme Court held that review provision is not to scrutinize correctness of decision but to correct visible errors without considering possibility of different opinion - Division Bench exceeded its review jurisdiction by rehearing and rewriting the judgment (Paras 15-16). C) Education Law - Teacher Appointments - Sanctioned Posts - Uttar Pradesh Government Orders - State Government sanctioned five posts for payment of salary from State Exchequer for the institution - Circular dated 01.01.2016 granted approval for payment of salary to teachers actually working prior to institution being taken under grant-in-aid list - Court found that orders did not permit payment beyond sanctioned strength (Paras 4-5, 14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Division Bench of the High Court exceeded its review jurisdiction in allowing the review petition and virtually reversing its earlier decision dismissing the special appeal, and whether the writ court's order directing salary payment based on seniority was legal.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 05.02.2021 allowing the review is set aside. No order as to costs. All pending applications stand disposed of.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record
- not for rehearing or rewriting judgments
- Seniority-based salary payment for teachers in grant-in-aid institutions is permissible if within sanctioned strength
- Internal bifurcation of sanctioned posts by an institution does not create new posts or impose extra burden on the State
