The Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) has reaffirmed the narrow scope of review jurisdiction, holding that a review petition cannot serve as a substitute for appeal when vacancies have been filled and no practical relief remains. The judgment underscores that judicial review must be confined to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record, not re-evaluating factual or legal merits.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Dr. Kashinath L. Dhumaskar, applied for two Assistant Professor posts in Biochemistry at Goa University, reserved for OBC candidates under an advertisement dated 11.05.2020. He scored 49 out of 100 marks, falling one mark short of the 50-mark cutoff. Two OBC candidates were appointed, and the petitioner was excluded.
Procedural History
- 11.05.2020: Goa University advertised two OBC-reserved Assistant Professor posts in Biochemistry.
- 2020: Petitioner applied as an OBC candidate and scored 49/100.
- 2022: Writ Petition No. 599 of 2022 filed challenging non-selection, alleging miscalculation of marks, denial of 5% OBC relaxation, and irregular appointment of Respondent No. 3.
- 30.07.2025: Division Bench dismissed the writ petition after detailed consideration.
- 11.2025: Review Petition filed seeking reconsideration of the dismissal order.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought: (1) recalculation of his marks with proper OBC relaxation; (2) cancellation of Respondent No. 3’s appointment for allegedly submitting a forged residency certificate; and (3) direction to accommodate him in a future vacancy.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a review petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be entertained to re-examine the merits of a dismissed writ petition when the vacancies in question have already been filled and no effective relief can be granted.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Mr. Pundalik Raiker argued that the Division Bench erred in: (1) failing to apply the 5% relaxation for OBC candidates under UGC Regulations; (2) incorrectly computing his marks; and (3) overlooking the ineligibility of Respondent No. 3, who allegedly submitted a forged residency certificate after the deadline. He relied on Vivek Kaisth & anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh to contend that appointments violating eligibility criteria are void.
For the Respondent
Ms. A. Agni, Senior Advocate for Goa University, countered that: (1) marks were computed strictly in accordance with University and UGC norms; (2) documentary submission deadlines were interpreted flexibly and uniformly across all candidates; and (3) Respondent No. 3 met eligibility criteria by the cut-off date, even if documents were submitted later. She emphasized that the review petition was an attempt to re-litigate the merits already decided.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by recalling the well-established principle that review jurisdiction is not an appeal. As held in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, review is confined to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record, not re-hearing the case on its merits.
"If the ground of review is an error apparent on the face of the record, such an error must be established on the face of the record, without earmarking on elaborate hearing of the Petition. Re-hearing of a Petition, so as to figure out an error in the order, would be impermissible in the exercise of review jurisdiction."
The Court found that all grounds raised by the petitioner - mark calculation, relaxation entitlement, and eligibility of Respondent No. 3 - were fully examined and rejected in the original writ order. The petitioner’s attempt to re-argue these points constituted a disguised appeal.
Crucially, the Court noted that the two OBC vacancies had been filled. Even if Respondent No. 3’s appointment were set aside, the petitioner, as an OBC candidate, could not be appointed to an unreserved vacancy. The Court observed:
"Even if her appointment is set aside, the Respondent no. 3 cannot make way for the Review Petitioner who is an OBC category candidate."
This rendered any relief purely academic. The Court further rejected the request for future accommodation, noting that review petitions cannot create new rights or obligations beyond the original dispute.
The Verdict
The review petition was dismissed. The Court held that review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to re-litigate merits where vacancies are filled and no practical relief is possible. The petitioner’s claims, even if substantiated, could not alter the outcome.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Review Petitions Are Not Appeals
- Practitioners must file appeals within statutory time limits; review petitions are not a second chance to argue facts or law.
- Any attempt to introduce new evidence or re-argue factual disputes will be dismissed as beyond the scope of review.
- Courts will scrutinize whether the petition seeks to circumvent the appellate process.
Vacancies Filled = No Effective Relief
- When public posts are filled, courts will not entertain challenges that cannot result in actual appointment.
- Petitioners must implead actual appointees to establish standing; failure to do so renders the petition infructuous.
- Relief cannot be granted against unreserved vacancies for reserved category candidates.
Uniform Application of Rules Prevails
- Administrative bodies are entitled to apply eligibility criteria uniformly, even if documentation is submitted late, provided the eligibility itself existed by the cut-off date.
- Allegations of forgery require concrete proof; mere suspicion or procedural irregularity is insufficient to set aside appointments.
- Courts will defer to institutional discretion where rules are applied consistently across all candidates.
