S.D. Shikshak Prashikshan College v. National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

1. The only ground urged by Mr. Amitesh Kumar, for seeking review of my judgement dated 22 April 2024, is that the judgement proceeds on the premise that his clients were not Multi-Disciplinary Institutions[1], which they are.

2. In para 65 of the order under challenge, I have specifically noted Mr. Amitesh Kumar’s contention advanced before me, at the time when the writ petitions were argued, that, except for the fact that his clients were not MDIs, they satisfied all other requirements. I have taken a view that the requirement of being MDIs is mandatory and as Mr. Amitesh Kumar had himself pointed out that his clients were not MDIs, they were not entitled to the benefits sought.

3. Today, in the review petition, Mr. Amitesh Kumar’s contention is that his clients were, in fact, MDIs.

4. We have perused the entire review petition. There is no averment that the contention of Mr. Amitesh Kumar as noted, in para 65, of the judgment under review, was wrongly noted, or that he had not submitted, as noted in the judgement under review, that his clients were not MDIs. Nor is there any averment that the statement was made in error, or was otherwise incorrect.

5. Rather, Mr. Amitesh Kumar’s submission, on the basis of which he seeks review, is directly contrary to what was submitted before me when the writ petitions were heard.

6. To my mind, a review cannot be sought thus. The review “MDIs” hereinafter petition would necessarily have to advert to the said submission, which, if made in error, might be open to a reconsideration in review. Review cannot, however, be sought on the basis of the basis of a directly contrary stance, without even adverting to the original submission.

7. The position in law, in this regard, stands encapsulated in the following passage from State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak[2]:

AIR 1926 PC 136 Chowdhri v. Chandrabati Chowdhrain4] That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there. Of course a party may resile and an appellate court may permit him in rare and appropriate cases to resile from a concession on the ground that the concession was made on a wrong appreciation of the law and had led to gross injustice; but, he may not call in question the very fact of making the concession as recorded in the judgment.” (Emphasis supplied)

8. Avoiding all reference to the submission originally made, while seeking review, is simply not permissible.

9. The review petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications also stand dismissed.

10. As I have dismissed the Review Petitions on the basis of the principles set out in Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak, without examining them on merits, this order would not inhibit the review petitioners from preferring fresh Review Petitions in sync with the declaration of the law in the said judgement.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

DECEMBER 12, 2025