COL. AVTAR SINGH SEKHON versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1981] 1 S.C.R. 168 · Decided: 31-07-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

" 
B 
D 
168 
COL. AVTAR SINGH SEKHON 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
July, 31, 1980. 
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.) 
Review-When the! Court 1~ould revi~w its earlier judgment. 
Apprehending that the Government was considering a change of policy 
framed in 1964 for· choosing an officer 'to become brigadier in charge of 
military farms the petitioner moved tpe High Court for tile issue of a writ. 
On directions 
from 
the 
High Court to. the 
Defence 
Department to 
select the best man for the post the Department reported that the petitioner 
and respondent were equal in merit, but since the respondent in the review 
petition was senior as colonel, he be chosen for the post. 
After considering 
the legal import of the 1964 policy the High Court allowed the petitioner 
to become a brigadier. 
The respondent's petition for special leave was 
granted by this Court. 
The Central Government was given one month's 
time to evolve its policy, if necessary. 
That not having been done the 
respondent moved this Court again 
as to 
the non-compliance and 
for 
consequential orders. 
On May 9, 1980 the Court passed orders that the 
respondent be appointed as brigadier. 
The petitioner sought review of that 
order. 
HELD: A review is not a routine procedure. 
An earlier order cannot 
be reviewed unless the· Court is satisfied that material error manifest on the 
face of the order undermines its soundne>s or results in miscarriage· of 
justice. 
A review· of a judgment is a serious step and resort to it is proper 
only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has 
crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. 
In the instant case the relief of review 
is not justified. [173G-H] 
.'F 
Chandra Kanta v. Sheikh Habib [1975] 
3 SCR 933 at 933-34, followed. 
From the affidavits filed by the Government in· the Court on May 9, 
1980 it is obvious that the Government had decided on abandoning the 1964 
policy and was actually pursuing steps to fashion a new policy. 
Therefore, 
no rights on the old basis, if any, can enure to the benefit of the petitioner 
especially because he relied on his third rank in a selection for one vacancy 
made in 1971. 
That apart, a selection of 1979 turned out in favour of the 
respondent. 
The petitioner is postponed but by a few months and the 
respondent has been far senior as colonel 
and 
will retire in August, 1980. 
The conspectus of circumstances hardly persuades the Court that there is 
injustice in the order of May 7th or May 9th. 
[173D-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Review Petition No. 104 of 1980. 
'H 
Review Petition against the Judgment and Order of this Hon'ble 
Court dated 7-5-1980 and 9-5-1980 in CMP. No. 1219/80. 
Kapil'Siba1l and R. S. Sodhi for the Petitioner. 
COL. AVTAR SINGH v. UNION (Krishna Iyer, !.) 
R.K. Garg and P.C. Bhartari for Respondent No. 3. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
169 
KRISHNA IYER, J.-A simple petition to review an earlier 
judgment of this bench has, because of the intervening summer 
vacati~n. passed through vicissitudes, gathered episodes and been 
blown up into an exciting chronicle of unsavoury events, injecting more 
passion than. reason, more heat than light, into the forensic proceedings. 
We kept completely clear of the unhappy imputations and confined 
counsel to the merits of the review proceeding before us. 
'Justice 
discards party, friendship, and kindred and is therefore represented as 
biind'. This objectivity generated clarity and. brevity, thanks, of 
course, to cooperation by counsel on both sides. 
The facts are few although the fight is furious and the parties are 
army officers. It is a pity that careerism makes camaraderie a casualty 
in a profession where self-sacrifice for a higher cause is the dedication. 
Without moralising, we will state the grievance of the petitioner and 
examine whether our earlier order deserves reconsideration or reversal. 
Judges have a vested interest not in their judgments but in the justice 
of the cause and where the former is in error must unhesitatingly suffer 
surgery so that no curial wrong is done and right, to the best of our 
lights, is done. 
Two colonels in the army have one post of brigadier to which 
either may aspire and become Director of Military Farms. In this 
musical chair scenario the (review) petitioner apprehending that the 
Central Government was considering a change of policy departing 
from the 1964 policy, in choosing the officer to become brigadier 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.