The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has dismissed a review application challenging its earlier judgment in a recruitment dispute involving the post of Assistant Operator (Radio Cadre). The Court held that review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used to seek a fresh hearing on disputed facts or to reargue the case.
Background of the Case
The review applicant had participated in the recruitment process conducted under an advertisement issued on January 6, 2022. He claimed that he had uploaded a valid Economically Weaker Section (EWS) certificate while submitting his online application and should have been considered under the EWS category.
According to the applicant, he had secured marks higher than the last selected EWS candidate but was denied the benefit of reservation. He also alleged that when the writ petition was heard earlier, an important page containing his EWS certificate was omitted from the written instructions placed before the Court, leading to an incorrect factual finding.
The State opposed the review plea, maintaining that the applicant had submitted his online application under the Unreserved category and that the EWS certificate relied upon was not in the prescribed format. It further argued that the review petition was merely an attempt to reopen issues already decided.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
Court's Observations
Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar reiterated that the power of review is extremely limited and can be exercised only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record or other legally recognized grounds.
The Court observed,
“Review is not an appeal in disguise and the Court cannot reappreciate evidence or re-hear the matter on merits.”
Addressing the allegation that a page had been omitted from the written instructions, the Court summoned the concerned recruitment officer and examined the original records. It found that the allegedly missing pages were available in the official record and matched the documents already on file.
The bench observed,
"Mere omission, misplacement or non-tagging of a particular page... would not automatically render the judgment under review erroneous, unless it is further shown that such omission has resulted in a patent error apparent on the face of the record.”
The Court also noted that the applicant had admittedly submitted the application under the Unreserved category, while the EWS certificate produced was not in the prescribed format. It concluded that no prejudice had been caused merely because of the alleged omission of documents.
Decision
Finding no error apparent on the face of the record, the High Court refused to interfere with its earlier judgment. It held that the issues raised required factual examination beyond the limited scope of review proceedings and, therefore, could not justify reopening the case.
Accordingly, the review application was dismissed.
Case Details
Case Title: Tapish Sharma v. State of U.P. and Others
Case Number: Civil Misc. Review Application No. 65 of 2025
Judge: Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar
Decision Date: 10 June 2026
