Urmila Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 15772 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:110193
 
Reserved on 05.01.2023
 
Court No. - 36
 

 
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 490 of 2022
 
Applicant :- Urmila Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Dwivedi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh,Pranesh Dutt Tripathi
 

 
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J. 

1. Heard Shri Alok Dwivedi, learned counsel for the Review Applicant/ petitioner and Smt. Archana Singh and Shri P.D. Tripathi, learned counsels who have put in appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4 respectively. Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notices on behalf of the State respondent nos. 1 and 2.

2. The instant review application has been filed seeking the review of the judgment and order dated 20.10.2022 passed in Writ A N. 9317 of 2022, which has been decided along with a bunch of writ petitions pending amongst them being writ A No. 8949 of 2022 (Hina Islam vs. State of U.P. and others). It has been prayed that the review be allowed and the respondent no. 3 i.e. the Board of Basic Education U.P. at Allahabad, through its Secretary be directed to verify the documents of the Review applicant/ petitioner submitted pursuance to the list issued on 10.05.2022 (which includes the name of the review applicant/ petitioner at sl. no. 1151) and thereafter allot the District in accordance with preference given in pursuance of the order dated 29.08.2019 passed in Writ A No. 19737 of 2018 (Shiksha Singh & 48 others vs. State of U.P. and others) and order dated 14.09.2021 passed in Special Appeal No. 274 of 2020 (Amit Shekhar Bhardwaj vs. State of U.P. & Others).

3. The review application has been preferred on the ground that the case of the applicant/ petitioner is entirely different and was wrongly connected with the petitions tagged with Writ A No. 8949 of 2002 (Hina Islam vs. State of U.P. and others) decided by the order dated 20.10.2022. The applicant petitioner belongs to OBC category and is a meritorious reserved category candidate (MRC) with quality point marks of 63.69. She had opted district Allahabad as her first option but has been allotted district Kushinagar which was her 19th option. Candidates securing lesser quality point marks than her have been allotted Allahabad district. The appellant/ petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 19607 of 2018 which was disposed of vide order dated 14.09.2018 directing the respondent authorities to revisit the decision regarding posting of the applicant/ petitioner if she represented before the authorities. The applicant/ petitioner filed a representation which was decided by the Secretary, Basic Education Board, vide order dated 18.04.2019 saying that in the case of the applicant/ petitioner further action would be taken after disposal of writ petition No. 19737 of 2018 Shiksha Singh (supra). The applicant/ petitioner thereafter filed the writ A No. 9317 of 2022 giving rise to the present review application claiming the following reliefs:

(I) Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the third respondent/ Secretary, U.p. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj to allot District Allahabad in pursuance to list dated 10.05.2022 (Annexure-19) placing the name of the petitioner at Serial No. 1151 (( Registration No. 3500061015) finally allotting her District Prayagraj for posting as Assistant Teacher (Primary).

(ii) Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the fourth respondent/ District Basic Education Officer, Kushi Nagar to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 09.06.2022 (Anneuxre-23) regarding allotment of District Allahabad for which preference had been given by her in the application dated 09.11.2021 (Annexure 17) and on-line application dated 03.04.2022 (Anneuxre-18) moved in pursuance to the order of learned Single Judge dated 14.09.2018 (Anneuxre-9) passed in Writ-A No. 19607 of 2018; Urmila Singh vs. State of U.P. & 4 others and in the light of order of Division Bench dated 14.09.2021 (Anneuxre-16) passed in Special Appeal No. 274 of 2020; Amit Shekhar Bhardwaj vs. State of U.P. & others.

4. Learned counsel for the respective parties have been heard at length.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record the Court finds that essentially the applicant/ petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in denying the allotment of her choice despite having higher quality point marks. This is the precise question that was involved in the Bunch of Writ Petitions leading amongst them being Writ A No. 8949 of 2022 (Hina Islam vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) which was decided by the order dated 20.09.2022 sought to be reviewed herein. For the relief claimed in the writ petition quoted herein before the applicant/ petitioner has sought relief in terms of the order dated 14.09.2018 passed in Writ A No. 19607 of 2018 and order dated 14.09.2021 passed in Special Appeal No. 214 of 2020 (Amit Shekhar Bhardwaj vs. State of U.P. and others). In view of the above the Court finds no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the review applicant/petitioner that her case stands at a different footing and was not liable to be clubbed along with the Bunch of Writ petitions leading amongst them being the case of Hina Islam (Supra). The Court further finds that the representation of the applicant/ petitioner filed pursuant to the order passed on her writ petition no. 19607 of 2018 had been decided by the Secretary, Basic Education Board, vide order dated 18.04.2019 which order was never challenged. In the end of the day the allotment of the districts to the selected candidates were to be governed by the decision rendered in Writ Petition No. 19737 of 2018 (Shikha Singh and 48 others vs. State of U.P. and others) and Special Appeal No. 274 of 2020 filed against the decision in the case of Shiksha Singh (supra) and any subsequent special appeal arising from the decision of Shiksha Singh (Supra).

6. This Court while considering the Bunch of the writ petitions including the Writ A No. 9317 of 2022 giving rise to the instant review application has taken into consideration the decisions rendered in Writ A No. 19737 of 2018 (Shikha Singh & 48 others vs. State of U.p. and others), Special Appeal No. 274 of 2020 as also the Special Appeal Defective No. 1048 of 2021 (O & M) Tiwari Manish and others vs. State of U.P. and others).

7. The Special Appellate Bench in Special Appeal Defective No. 1048 of 2021 (O & M) Tiwari Manish and others vs. State of U.P. and others) and Special Appeal No. 274 of 2020 has laid down that the things which have already been settled, cannot be unsettled especially where there are large number of candidates still available, who have not challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Any interference in the present Appeals will open a floodgate and will not let the State to finalize the issue of allocation of districts to the selected candidates.

8. In view of the above this Court proceeded to dismiss the bunch of Writ petitions including the Writ Petition No. 9317 of 2022 giving rise to the present review application. However, while dismissing the writ petitions liberty was granted to the petitioners to move a representation before the Secretary, U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Shiksha Nideshalaya at Prayagraj clearly setting out his/her/their claim which claim was directed to be considered by the Secretary in the end of the sessions of the academic year so that the functioning of the institution may not be affected.

9. Smt. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the contesting respondent has apprised the Court that the judgment and order dated 20.09.2022 sought to be reviewed has been upheld in Special Appeal No. 735 of 2022 (Sonu Dentrey vs. State of U.P. and 2 others). The Court takes note of the fact that the applicant/petitioner has choosen not to take benefit of the liberty granted by this Court to approach the Secretary, Basic Education Board, and prefer this review instead.

10. No error on the face of the record has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the review applicant/ petitioner so as to warrant exercises of the review jurisdiction. The Apex Court recently in the Case of Pancham Lal Pandey Versus Neeraj Kumar Mishra and others, Civil Appeal No. 578 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (c) No. 3329 of 2021 decided on 15.02.203, have held that the provisions of review is not to scrutinize the correctness of decision rendered rather to correct the error, if any, which is visible on the face of the order, record without going into as to whether there is possibility of another opinion different from the one expressed. A review cannot be an appeal in disguise.

11. The Court finds no good ground to review its judgment and order. The Review application lacks merit and is dismissed.

Order Date :- 19.05.2023

Deepak