Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 01st May, 2023
DHANANJAY KUMAR MISHRA AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Shashank Singh, Mr. Akash Alex and Ms. Yogyata Jhunjhunwala, Advocates.
AND ANR. ……..Respondents
Through: Mr. K.K. Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Digvijay Rai, Mr. Anshul Rai, Ms. Sreoshi Chatterjee and Mr. Archit Mishra, Advocates for R-1.
Ms. Anjana Gosain, Ms. Nippun Sharma and Ms. Hetika Vadhera, Advocates for R-2.
ANAND KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: None.
Through: Mr. Digvijay Rai and Mr. Archit Mishra, Advocates for R-1 with Mr. Vivek Gupta, Senior Manager for
AAI.
ARVIND KEWART ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Biraja Mahapatra and Mr. Nalin Hingorani, Advocates.
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. K.K. Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Digvijay Rai, Mr. Anshul Rai, Ms. Sreoshi Chatterjee and Mr. Archit Mishra, Advocates.
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment will dispose of three review petitions filed by Airport Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AAI’) under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking review/recall of the judgment dated 26.02.2020, whereby three writ petitions being W.P.(C) 9687/2019, W.P.(C) 9716/2019 and W.P.(C) 10697/2019 have been decided. Original writ Petitioners are Respondents in the review petitions and are being referred to as Petitioners hereinafter for the sake of convenience.
2. Before embarking on the journey to decide whether the judgement dated 26.02.2020 entails a review on merits, it is important to delineate the scope and ambit of interference by the Court while deciding a review petition.
3. In S. Nagaraj and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another, 1993 Supp (4) SCC 595, the Supreme Court held that review literally and even judicially means re-examination or re-consideration and basic philosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance of human fallibility, yet in the realm of law, Courts and even Statutes lean strongly in favour of finality of decisions legally and properly made. Exceptions, both statutorily and judicially have been carved out to correct accidental mistakes or miscarriage of justice. In M/s. Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1980) 2 SCC 167, the Supreme Court considered the powers of review under Order
47 Rule 1 CPC and held as follows:- “8. It is well-ettled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so: Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1965 SC 845: (1965) 1 SCR 933, 948: (1965) 1 SCJ 377]. For instance, if the attention of the Court is not drawn to a material statutory provision during the original hearing, the Court will review its judgment: G.L. Gupta v. D.N. Mehta [(1971) 3 SCC 189: 1971 SCC (Cri) 279: (1971) 3 SCR 748, 750]. The Court may also reopen its judgment if a manifest wrong has been done and it is necessary to pass an order to do full and effective justice: O.N. Mohindroo v. Distt. Judge, Delhi [(1971) 3 SCC 5: (1971) 2 SCR 11, 27]. Power to review its judgments has been conferred on the Supreme Court by Article 137 of the Constitution, and that power is subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or the rules made under Article 145. In a civil proceeding, an application for review is entertained only on a ground mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and in a criminal proceeding on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record (Order 40 Rule 1, Supreme Court Rules, 1966). But whatever the nature of the proceeding, it is beyond dispute that a review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except “where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility”: Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib [(1975) 1 SCC 674: 1975 SCC (Tax) 200: (1975) 3 SCR 933].”
4. In Lily Thomas and Others v. Union of India and Others, (2000) 6 SCC 224, the Supreme Court held that power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view and review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. The Supreme Court analysed the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC which provide that an application for review of a judgment/order/ decree, from which no appeal is allowed or where appeal is allowed but has not been preferred, can be filed by any person aggrieved and who from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the judgment/order/ decree was passed or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. The Supreme Court interpreted the said provisions and held that the words ‘any other sufficient reason’ must mean a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in Order 47 Rule 1 as held in Chhajju Ram v. Neki and Others, AIR 1922 PC 112. An error apparent on the face of the proceedings is an error which is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law i.e. an error which is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision as laid down in T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa and Another, (1955) 1 SCR 250. In Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque and Others, (1955) 1 SCR 1104, the Supreme Court held that to seek review, there should be something more than a mere error, it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record and no error could be an error apparent on the face of the record if it is not self-evident and requires examination or argument to establish it.
5. Therefore, what emerges from the reading of the aforesaid judgments is that power of review cannot be exercised to substitute a view and merely because two views on the said subject are possible, it is not a ground to review the earlier judgment passed by a Bench of the same strength. It is equally clear that review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise for re-hearing and a fresh decision on the merits of the case. Judicial precedents have leaned in favour of finality to judgments delivered by Courts and a Review Petitioner cannot urge that the Court should re-hear the matter either as original proceedings or as an Appellate Court.
6. It is in this background that the contentions of AAI will have to be examined. Broadly understood, AAI seeks review of judgement dated 26.02.2020 on three aspects: (a) Petitioners were not working in ‘Executive cadre’; (b) the required experience of 05 years under the advertisement can only be an experience of working as regular employees and not contractual employees; and (c) Petitioners did not fulfil the criterion of drawing minimum Rs.11 lacs, cost to company (CTC) per annum as on cut-off date.
7. A brief background of facts is necessitated to understand the scope of the review petitions filed by AAI. Online applications were invited by AAI for appointment to various posts, however, this case only concerns with appointments to the post of Manager (Electronics) against Advertisement No. 02/2018. Petitioners applied but were declared ineligible and when the representations did not receive a positive response, writ petitions were filed. Prescribed minimum qualifications in the advertisement were ‘full time regular B.E./B.Tech. Degree in Electronics/Telecommunications/Electrical with specialisation in Electronics’ with ‘5 years work experience in Executive cadre in the field of Electronics and Telecommunications’. It was further stipulated that candidates from private sector should be drawing minimum CTC of Rs.11 lacs p.a. as on the cut off date i.e. 30.06.2018. Numbers of vacancies were 324, which could be increased or decreased at the sole discretion of AAI.
8. There is no dispute between the parties with regard to the minimum educational qualifications and the bone of contention is the experience as well as drawing CTC of Rs.11 lacs p.a. It is not the case of the Petitioners that any of them were drawing minimum CTC as required and their claim agitated in the writ petitions centred around the criterion of experience which, they asserted, they possessed and thus, in their perception, the requirement of drawing a minimum CTC was irrelevant and/or inapplicable in their case.
9. Case of the Petitioners was that they qualified the stipulated condition of experience of 5 years in the Executive cadre as they were working in Government/PSU/Autonomous bodies albeit as contract/ ad-hoc employees and there was nothing in the advertisement which mandated that the candidates to be regular employees. In short, case of the Petitioners was that every Government Organisation/PSU/ Government Sector Undertaking hires manpower on direct contract basis in their Executive cadres depending on need and status of the work and as illustrations they cited the examples of National High Speed Rail Corporation, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation etc. Petitioners averred that they had been working with various Government/Public Sector Enterprises and ‘experience’ means working experience and AAI did not qualify the same as contractual or regular and thus Petitioners could not be declared ineligible. It was argued that since Petitioners were not working in a private sector, the eligibility condition of drawing Rs.11 lacs CTC could not be imposed upon them. For a ready reference, a tabular representation of the experience of the Petitioners, as extracted in the judgment is as under:- Petitioner Nos. Name Organization Work Experience 1 Dhananjay Mishra
1. Engineering Projects India Ltd.
2. BHEL 2 Years 6 Months
4 Rigvendra Kumar Vardhan National Institute of Ocean Technology 5 Months 25 Days Combat Vehicles Res. & Dev. Estt, DRDO (Central Govt.)
1. Rail Tel Corporation of India Limited
2. Narula Infra Pvt. Ltd.
3. Elblag Technology Pvt. Ltd.
6 Naveen Kr. Saluja Air India Transport service 6 Years 7 Months 28 Days 7 Saritha TS Kerala State Electronics Development Corporation Limited
18 Days Galgotias College of 3 Years 10 Months Engg. and Technology 30 Days College of Engineering Roorkee 1 Year 5 Months 30 Days
10. According to AAI, none of the Petitioners had worked in Executive cadres as regular employees and since they were not drawing minimum CTC of Rs.11 lacs on the cut-off date, they were ineligible for appointment. This defence was predicated on the nature of employment of the Petitioners and it was urged that since they were working as contractual employees in the respective erstwhile employments, they were not on the strength of the service or employed against sanctioned posts and thus were not in the ‘Executive cadre”. Emphasis was laid on the definition of the word ‘cadre’ to connote ‘strength of service or part of service sanctioned as a separate unit’ and reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar and Others, (1988) 2 SCC 214 and this Court in Umesh Verma v. The Chairman/Managing Director National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd., W.P. (C) NO. 8326/2005, decided on 24.10.2008. It was also urged that under 7th CPC pay levels, applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2016, minimum pay in the Executive cadre for Central Government employees was Rs.35,000/per month and as per O.M. dated 03.08.2007, issued by Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, for an employee working in the public sector the pay scale was Rs.40,000-1,40,000 w.e.f. 01.01.2017 and none of the Petitioners were in the required pay levels. AAI further urged that even going by the pre-revised pay scales under 6th CPC for Central Government employees and PSUs, which were Rs.9,300-34,800 and Rs.16,400-40,500, respectively, Petitioners were ineligible being in lower scales. In a nut-shell, 12 Petitioners were ineligible on account of lack of experience of 5 years in Executive cadre while others were ineligible as they lacked the criteria of minimum CTC of Rs. 11 lacs p.a.
11. Writ petitions were decided by a detailed judgement and analysis of the issues raised, after examining the advertisement, pay scales, meaning and connotation of expression ‘Executive cadre’ and the Airports Authority of India (General Conditions of Service and Remuneration of Employees), Regulations 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Regulations 2003’). Court observed that Regulation (4) of Regulations 2003 recognised only two categories of employees in AAI i.e. Non-Executive and Executives with their respective pay scales and that the expression ‘Executive cadre’ was not defined in any Regulation. The terms cadre/grade are used in the context of ‘post’ rather than strength and irrespective of whether the posts were permanent or temporary, the word ‘cadre’ in the advertisement will have to be given its literal meaning in that context. Court also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Pushpa Rani and Others, (2008) 9 SCC 242 and came to the conclusion that the term ‘cadre’ is not restricted to regular/permanent/sanctioned posts. Relevant paragraphs from the judgement under review are as follows:-
17. In Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar [(1988) 2 SCC 214] it was observed as under:- “In service jurisprudence, the term ‘cadre’ has a definite legal connotation. It is not synonymous with ‘service’. It is open to the Government to constitute as many cadres in any particular service as it may choose according to the administrative convenience and expediency and it cannot be said that the establishment of the Directorate constituted the formation of a joint cadre of the Director and the Deputy Directors because the posts are not interchangeable and the incumbents do not perform the same duties, carry the same responsibilities or draw the same pay. The posts of the Director and those of the Deputy Directors constitute different cadres of the service. The first vacancy in the cadre of Deputy Directors was that of the Deputy Director (Homeopathic) and it had to be treated as unreserved, the second reserved and the third unreserved. Therefore, for the first vacancy of the Deputy Director (Homeopathic), a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste had therefore to compete with others.”
18. In State of Maharashtra v. Purshottam [(1996) 9 SCC 266], it was held that the “cadre” means unit of strength of a service or a part of it as determined by the employer.”
23. The ratio of the judgments supra also makes it very clear that no definite meaning can be ascribed to the term 'Cadre' and taking note of the own Regulations framed and proposed by AAI, the Court does not find merit in the contention of Mr. Rai, Ld. Counsel for AAI that the term 'Cadre' has to be viewed strictly in the context of a regular or permanent post or to say, a sanctioned post only.”
12. As can be seen an in-depth analysis was done by the Court to examine the import of the expression ‘Executive cadre’ and it was finally concluded that the criterion of experience of 5 years in the Executive cadre, as stipulated in the advertisement, nowhere even remotely suggested that the experience was required to be only in permanent or regular posts and not on contract or ad-hoc basis. Additionally, Court also observed that Petitioners were working in PSUs/CPSEs, most of them being Maha Ratna or Mini Ratna, Government of India Enterprises or Undertakings, alike AAI and therefore, to undervalue the calibre of the employees engaged by such Enterprises/Undertakings, though on temporary or contractual basis, would be unjustified particularly, in the absence of a stipulation in the advertisement qualifying or restricting the eligibility to ‘regular’ appointments. For a better understanding of the term Executive cadre used in the advertisement, the Court examined the expression in light of Regulation (4) of Regulations 2003 as also under the proposed Regulations 2005, relied upon by AAI and the hierarchy, wherein the Executive posts begin with Junior Executive and equivalent with pay scale of Rs.8,600-14,600 (level-E[1]) and go up to the post of Executive Director and equivalent with the pay scale of Rs.23,750-28,550 (level- E-9). For those of the Petitioners, who qualified the eligibility condition of experience in executive cadre, Court held that they were wrongly declared ineligible on the premise that they were not drawing Rs.11 lac CTC p.a., as this was a mandatory condition for private sector candidates only. Relevant paras from the judgment are as under:-
13. Significantly, wherever the Court was of the view that any of the Petitioners did not fulfil the required condition, Court rejected the claim, as in the case of V.S. Jayalaxmi, who was working in a private sector and did not fulfil the eligibility condition of minimum Rs. 11 lac CTC p.a.
14. Mr. K.K. Rai, learned Senior Counsel for AAI/Review Petitioner contended that Petitioners were rightly found ineligible as per the Check List prepared by AAI after document verification based on the information disclosed by them that they were working on contract/ad-hoc basis in their previous employments and were not drawing minimum Rs. 11 lac CTC p.a. as on 30.06.2018. Court has while allowing the writ petitions, erroneously proceeded on the basis that Petitioners were found ineligible only on the premise of not drawing minimum Rs. 11 lac CTC p.a., whereas AAI had clearly stated in the short affidavit, filed on 18.09.2019, that Petitioners were rejected on both counts i.e. working as contract employees in their previous employments and thus not meeting the criterion of ‘experience in Executive cadre’ as well as lack of minimum CTC. Court has also erred in relying upon Regulations 2003 and pre-revised pay scales, ignoring the fact that the pay scale of E-1 as on the cut-off date was Rs.40,000-1,40,000, in which the Petitioners did not fall. In fact, Petitioners did not qualify even as per the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.9,300-34,800 for Central Government employees and Rs.16,400-40,500 for PSUs. Since Petitioners did not fulfil the criteria of experience of working in Executive cadres on regular basis, their eligibility was examined as private sector candidates, however, on that score also they were ineligible, lacking the criterion of drawing minimum Rs. 11 lac CTC p.a. as on 30.06.2018. The error committed by the Court in holding that Petitioners were in the Executive cadre stems from the fact that the Court took into account the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.8,600-14,600 for E-1 level in AAI, which was the pay scale in the year 2003 or at best 2005, overlooking that on the cut-off date, pay scale was revised to Rs.40,000-1,40,000. In this backdrop, AAI rightly rejected the candidatures of the Petitioners and the judgement deserves to be reviewed. Learned counsels for the Petitioners supported the judgement on merits and reiterated the arguments made at the time of hearing the writ petition and also argued that there was no error apparent calling for interference in the limited scope of review jurisdiction.
15. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for AAI and counsels for the Petitioners and examined their respective contentions.
16. From the conspectus of the judgments, aforementioned, on the scope of the jurisdiction of this Court while dealing with the review petition, it is clear that a review is not an appeal and nor can it be used as a proceeding to re-argue the matter as original proceedings. It is equally well-settled that an error apparent, which can be corrected in a review jurisdiction, is a patent error and not a wrong decision and merely because two views on the same subject are possible, review of a judgment is not warranted. From a reading of the review petitions and after hearing the arguments canvassed on behalf of AAI, it is evident that Review Petitioners are seeking to re-argue the matter on merits, requiring this Court to re-appreciate each and every contention raised before the Court in the writ petitions, both on facts and law. This, in my opinion, is outside the scope of this Court’s review jurisdiction. Order 47 Rule 1 CPC entails interference in an order or a decree which is not appealable or if appealable but from which no appeal has been preferred, where the review applicant is aggrieved and who applies for a review of the judgment, either on account of discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced in time or there is any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or there is any other sufficient reason.
17. As noted above, review petitions have been filed requiring this Court to hold that Petitioners do not fulfil the eligibility condition of experience of 5 years in the Executive cadre nor were they drawing minimum Rs. 11 lac CTC p.a., treating them as private sector candidates. It bears repetition to state that the Court, after a detailed hearing and deliberation on all aspects rendered certain crucial findings viz: (a) notified Regulation (4) of Regulations 2003 prescribe designations of Non-Executives and Executives with their respective pay scales and do not define the expression ‘Executive Cadre’; (b) terms ‘Cadre’ or ‘Grade’ are used in the context of ‘post’ rather than the strength thereof and when contextualised, this is de hors the posts being permanent or temporary; (c) advertisement invited applications from all eligible candidates including both from public and private sector; (d) in A.K. Subraman and Others v. Union of India and Others, (1975) 1 SCC 319, the Supreme Court held that a Cadre may consist only of permanent post or sometimes as is quite common these days also of temporary posts and therefore, going by the judgments, the term ‘Cadre’ cannot be strictly viewed in the context of regular posts only; (e) Regulations 2003 or even the proposed Regulations 2005, throw light on the import of the expression ‘Executive Cadre’ used in the advertisement and do not suggest that the required experience had to be on permanent or regular post so as to exclude contract/ad-hoc experience; and (f) Petitioners were working in PSUs/PSEs most of which were Maha Ratna or Mini Ratna Government of India Enterprises/Undertakings and to underestimate the calibre of employees engaged therein, though on temporary or contractual basis, would be unjustified looking at the nature of public duties they were performing. In view of these categorical findings having their genesis in the Regulations 2003, the exact stipulation with respect to experience in the advertisement, import of the expression ‘Executive Cadre’ and ‘Cadre’, premised on the observations of the various judgments of the Supreme Court, Court came to a conclusion that there was nothing in the advertisement which excluded the experience of the Petitioners on contractual/ ad-hoc/temporary basis towards eligibility for appointment to the post of Manager (Electronics).
18. Petitioners, in my view, are correct in the submission that if the Regulations 2003 or the advertisement did not specifically stipulate or prescribe the requirement of ‘regular service’ in the Executive Cadre, it is not open to AAI to import that requirement at a later stage. In Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited and Anr. v. Bharat Ahuja and Anr., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9065, a Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a writ petition challenging the judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal directing the Petitioners to re-examine the case of promotion of Respondent No. 1 therein to the post of Chief Project Manager (Civil). Respondent No. 1 was working in DSIIDC on the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) on ad-hoc basis and holding the current duty charge on the post of CPM, whereafter he was regularized as AEE and assigned the current duty charge to the post of EE (Civil). A DPC was held to consider the names of AEEs for promotion to the post of CPM on regular basis but the name of Respondent No. 1 was not considered. Stand of DSIIDC was that Respondent No. 1 was ineligible since he did not possess 7 years of required regular service for promotion under the existing Recruitment Rules and this was the exact controversy before the Division Bench. To test the correctness of the stand of DSIIDC, Court examined the extant Recruitment Rules and noted that while AEs possessing Diploma were required to possess at least 7 years of service in the Grade, AEEs possessing a degree in Engineering or equivalent were required to possess experience of minimum 4 years and regular service in the grade. Court rejected the contention of DSIIDC that the mere use of the word ‘service’ would connote regular service and thus the words used in the Recruitment Rules cannot be re-framed/re-worded at the whims of the Petitioners and have to be read and interpreted as they stand, giving them their plain and unambiguous meaning. The same controversy arose before Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in D.K. Jain & Another v. Delhi Jal Board & Ors., 2005 SCC OnLine Del 716, where while examining the disputes relating to seniority between Graduate and Diploma holders in the Delhi Jal Board, the Court observed that there was no justification for not giving effect to the plain meaning of the phrase ‘service in the grade’ as connoting ad-hoc/stop gap/temporary officiation since there was no mention of the word ‘regular’.
19. Applying the principle laid down in the aforementioned judgments to the present case, in my view, the observations and conclusion of the Court that in the absence of the word ‘regular’ in the column requiring experience of 5 years in the Executive Cadre, it is not open to AAI to import words into the advertisement, which are conspicuously absent, does not warrant a review as there is no error apparent on the face of the judgement.
20. The next and the only other plank of the argument of AAI was that Petitioners do not fit into the Executive Cadre on the basis of the pay scales drawn by them in their former employment and that there is an error apparent on the face of the judgment since the Court has considered the pre-revised pay scales of the post of Junior Executive and equivalent i.e. E-1 level in AAI for comparison, ignoring that the pay scales stood revised in 2017 and even going by the pre-revised scales under 6th CPC, Petitioners were in lower scales. Elaborating the argument, Mr. Rai, learned senior counsel, stated that pursuant to the recommendations of 7th CPC, an Office Memorandum was issued by the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, Department of Public Enterprises, whereby the pay scales were revised for various CPSEs and the pay scale of E-1 level in AAI as on the cut-off date i.e. 30.06.2018 was Rs.40,000-1,40,000. Since the advertisement was issued in 2018 and the cut-off date was admittedly 30.06.2018, the pay scales as provided under 7th CPC would be applicable and therefore the Petitioners were required to fit into this pay scale, while they were in lower pay scales in their respective employments. It is urged that in para 26 of the judgment, Court while deciding this issue has compared the pay scale of Petitioner No. 1 with the pay scale in the E-1 level post, taking the same as Rs.8,600-14,600 (pre-revised) and therefore came to a finding that the Petitioner who was in the pay scale of Rs.16,400-40,500 as on 17.05.2019 was working in the Executive Cadre in the context of the pay scales. This according to Mr. Rai is an error apparent on the face of the judgement.
21. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contention of AAI in this regard. There can be no dispute that the Court has taken the pre-revised scale of Rs.8,600-14,600 for E-1 Level in AAI and this is an error as the scales have been revised in 2017. However, this is only a factual error and has no relevance or material bearing on the question of eligibility of the Petitioners. A plain reading of the Advertisement shows that the eligibility conditions were ‘full time regular B.E./B.Tech. Degree in Electronics/Telecommunications/ Electrical with specialisation in electronics’ with ‘5 years work experience in Executive cadre in the field of Electronics and Telecommunications’. There is no mention of a minimum pay scale and in the absence of such a stipulation in the Advertisement, the experience required will include, mean and connote the pay scales of the Petitioners in their respective employments, on the basis of which they had applied and cannot be matched or compared with the pay scale in AAI. This was the reason, as rightly contended by the Petitioners that at the initial stage, when AAI prepared the check list, pay scale was a non-issue as a ground for rejection. AAI cannot be permitted to introduce new eligibility conditions, alien or extraneous to the stipulation in the Advertisement. For this reason, the judgment relied upon by AAI in the case of Umesh Verma (supra) is inapplicable to the facts of the present case.
22. There is no error apparent in the judgment and AAI cannot be permitted to re-argue the matter in the garb of seeking a Review. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, the review petitions are dismissed, as this Court finds no reason to recall/review the judgment dated 26.02.2020 passed in W.P.(C) 9716/2019, W.P.(C) 10697/2019 and W.P.(C) 9687/2019.