Strict Enforcement of Review Limitations under CPC: Chhattisgarh High Court’s New Directive

1. Introduction

The Judgment under discussion is STATE OF CHHATTISGARH v. KU. KIRTI KUMARI KANWAR, delivered by the High Court of Chhattisgarh on 03 December 2024. This case arose when the State of Chhattisgarh sought to review a prior Order granting relief to the respondent (a female Multipurpose Health Worker or ANM), whose services had been terminated without an inquiry.

The petitioner, the State of Chhattisgarh, filed a review petition, seeking to re-argue points not raised in the original proceedings. The core issues addressed by the Court included:

Whether a probationary employee can be removed without affording an opportunity of hearing and conducting an inquiry, especially when appointed to a sanctioned post.
The permissible scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), particularly whether new grounds can be introduced at the review stage.

The parties to the dispute were the State of Chhattisgarh (through its Health and Family Welfare Department, the Director of Health Services, and the Chief Medical and Health Officer) as review petitioners, and Ku. Kirti Kumari Kanwar, the respondent and original writ petitioner whose services were terminated.

2. Summary of the Judgment

In its ruling, the High Court emphasized that grounds for reversing or modifying an Order in a review petition are limited to the criteria set out under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. The Court observed that the State attempted to raise new grounds which were not previously introduced in its original reply to the main writ petition. The Judgment clarified:

The respondent was appointed on a sanctioned post and was on probation. Once appointed against a sanctioned post, any order of termination without proper inquiry was held to be improper.
The High Court had earlier granted liberty to the State to take any lawful action if it could establish enough grounds, but only after following the due process.
In its application for review, the State claimed it would suffer financial consequences if the original Order remained in force. However, the State had not properly pleaded these facts in the original return.
As per settled law, no new plea or fresh arguments may be introduced at the review stage unless they come under the narrowly construed grounds for review.

Concluding there was no error apparent on the face of the record, the Court dismissed the review petition and reaffirmed its earlier Order favoring the respondent.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The Court referred to multiple decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the permissible scope of review. Key among these were:

M/s Northern India (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1980) 2 SCC 167 – Reiterating that review is not an avenue for re-arguing or avenging unfavorable decisions.
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 845 – Emphasizing that review is not a mechanism to obtain a fresh decision on the merits of a case which has been finally adjudicated.
Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, 1997 (8) SCC 715 – Stating that errors requiring reasoning or substantial re-analysis do not qualify as errors “apparent on the face of the record.”
M/S Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Assam State Electricity Board, 2020 (2) SCC 677 – Restricting review to uncovering “apparent errors,” thus disallowing disguised appeals in the form of review petitions.
Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy, (2021) 3 SCC 1 – Holding that even a subsequent change in legal position does not alone justify the grant of review.

These precedents collectively buttressed the Court’s decision that the review petitioner cannot introduce brand new arguments or re-litigate the entire controversy once the matter has been concluded, as such attempts fall outside the limited grounds provided under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning evolved around two fundamental points:

Legal Status of the Respondent’s Employment: Although the respondent was on probation, she was appointed against a “sanctioned and vacant post.” The Court recognized that even a probationer occupying a sanctioned post must be afforded legal safeguards, including a minimal inquiry or notice, before termination, unless employment documents unequivocally negate such requirement in compliance with constitutional safeguards.
Scope of Review under the CPC: Drawing on a host of Supreme Court authorities, the Court stressed that review jurisdiction is an exceptional remedy. It is invoked only when an obvious error of law appears on the face of the record or in the event of discovery of new material evidence not available earlier despite due diligence. Adding new facts or re-arguing previously known facts at the review stage is impermissible.

Since the review petitioners raised points not originally pleaded, the Court refused to permit the State to “commit a volte-face” and thoroughly re-argue the matter.

3.3 Impact

The Judgment’s directive that a public employer must follow due process—even for a probationary employee—when the post is sanctioned, strongly reinforces governmental accountability. Additionally, it reaffirms the strict reading of Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC to ensure that:

Parties cannot re-litigate or raise fresh arguments during review unless they fall strictly under recognized grounds (error apparent or new evidence).
Trial and appellate courts are guided to maintain the finality of judgments, safeguarding judicial economy and preventing litigants from abusing the review mechanism.

Future litigation dealing with employee terminations, especially involving probationers on sanctioned posts, will likely reference this Judgment to highlight the necessity of conducting an inquiry or offering a reasonable opportunity of hearing before terminating such appointments.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Below are explanations of key legal concepts discussed in the Judgment:

Probation: A trial employment period during which the performance and conduct of an employee are evaluated. While State rules often allow simpler termination of probationers, this does not nullify the requirement of basic fairness and compliance with existing legal and constitutional mandates.
Sanctioned Post: A position that has received formal approval (budgetary and administrative) from the government or relevant authority. Appointment to a sanctioned post typically extends certain procedural protections, even for probationers.
Scope of Review (Order 47 Rule 1 CPC): The legal framework permitting a court to reconsider a judgment. Valid grounds include:
- Discovery of new and important evidence previously unavailable.
- Error apparent on the face of the record (one that does not require extensive explanation to establish).
- Any other sufficient reason analogous to the above conditions.
Mere dissatisfaction with the outcome, or introduction of arguments not previously raised, does not fall within these grounds.

5. Conclusion

This Judgment is significant for two key reasons. First, it underscores the importance of due process before removing any employee—probationer or otherwise—when the post is sanctioned and vacant. Second, it powerfully reiterates the narrow scope of review jurisdiction under the CPC, preventing parties from strategically introducing supplementary arguments after the original decision.

In summarizing, the Chhattisgarh High Court sends a clear message that legal finality must be preserved, and review cannot serve as a secondary appeal. The state or any litigant may not employ a review petition to refashion a flawed defense or re-plead issues that could and should have been raised initially.

Practitioners and governmental authorities should, therefore, take due care in drafting and presenting their case at the earliest stage. They should also remember that due process requirements, especially in public employment matters, cannot be bypassed, even during an employee’s probationary period.