The High Court of Bombay at Goa on Monday dismissed a review petition filed by a candidate who challenged his non-selection to the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Biochemistry at Goa University, holding that no “error apparent on the face of the record” was made out to warrant a review of its earlier judgment.
The Division Bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Amit Jamsandekar, while rejecting the review application, observed that the petitioner was attempting to re-argue the case on merits, which is impermissible in review jurisdiction.
“The law on the subject is well settled that the jurisdiction of the Court in a Review Petition is very limited. In the garb of reviewing any order, the Court cannot embark on a rehearing of the Petition on the merits... 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 order stated.
The review petition was filed by Kashinath Dhumaskar, seeking reconsideration of the High Court’s July 30, 2025 judgment that had dismissed his writ petition challenging the selection process initiated by GU through an advertisement dated May 11, 2020.
Dhumaskar had applied for one of the two posts of Assistant Professor reserved for OBC candidates but obtained 49 marks out of 100, falling short of the prescribed cut-off of 50 marks. He was consequently not selected.
In the review plea, the petitioner contended that GU had incorrectly calculated his marks in violation of its regulations and that he was entitled to a five per cent relaxation as an OBC candidate. He also questioned the eligibility of a private respondent appointed against an unreserved post, alleging that the required residency certificate was not submitted within the stipulated time.
He also submitted that if not for the present set of vacancies, his case must be considered against any future vacancy since the vacancies under the advertisement dated May 11, 2020, issued by the University have already been filled in the meantime.
In its reply, GU submitted to the Bench that no candidate securing less than 50 percent marks has been appointed and, therefore, the grievance of the Petitioner is completely misplaced.
Rejecting these grounds, the Bench held that all such issues had already been considered by the earlier Division Bench and could not be reopened in review proceedings.
“After examining the submissions, we find that there is no error apparent on the face of the record so as to justify the review of the order dated July 30, 2025,” the court said, adding that the grounds raised were “those that can only be urged in an appeal and not in a review petition.”
The court also took note of the fact that all advertised vacancies had already been filled and that the petitioner had failed to implead the selected OBC candidates.
“If that be so, entertaining the plea raised by the petitioner would be merely an academic exercise, since no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the facts of the case,” the Bench observed.
On the challenge to the eligibility of the private respondent, the court accepted GU’s clarification that eligibility had been acquired within the cut-off date and that submission of documentary proof was permitted at a later stage, a condition uniformly applied to all candidates.
The Bench further rejected the petitioner’s plea seeking consideration against future vacancies, holding that once appointments were made pursuant to the 2020 advertisement, the selection process had come to an end.
“For the reasons stated above, we find that the review petition is devoid of any merits,” the court concluded, dismissing the plea with no order as to costs.
