Allahabad High Court
Ashok Kumar Tiwari vs District Inspector Of School And 2 ... on 4 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44904
Reserved on 1.8.2025
Delivered on 4.8.2025
Court No. - 14
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 87 of 2024
Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Tiwari
Opposite Party :- District Inspector Of School And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Vidya Bhushan Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Rakesh Chandra Tewari
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Vidya Bhushan Pandey, learned counsel for the review petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Rakesh Chandra Tewari, learned counsel for Avinash Tiwari, sole petitioner in the writ petition.
2. The review application is preferred under Chapter V Rule 12 of the Allahabad High Court Rules for review of the Judgment and order dated 21.5.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.6632 of 2008 (S/S) (now Writ-A No.6632 of 2008), Avinash Tiwari Vs. District Inspector of Schools and others).
3. The ground of challenge in the review application is that learned Writ Court, without considering and deciding the impleadment application, finally allowed the writ petition and, therefore, the facts, which could be raised by the review petitioner, has been left to be considered, which resulted into the order passed in favour of the petitioner Avinash Tiwari. Further it has also been pleaded that the Writ-A No.6632 of 2008 was filed while concealing the material facts.
4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the impleadment application was filed by the review petitioner and without passing any order on the same, the writ petition has been disposed of and the order impugned is passed. He added that the writ petitioner Avinash Tiwari had concealed substantial material facts and, therefore, there is apparent erroneousness on the face of the order and the same is liable to be set aside.
5. On the Contrary, learned counsel appearing for writ petitioner, Avinash Tiwari submits that the present applicant has no locus to file review application as admittedly, he is posted as Assistant Teacher LT Grade in the institution of the opposite party no.2, namely, Parmeshwari Prasad Inter College, Walipur, District Sultanpur and Avinash Tiwari is posted as Assistant Clerk. He submits that there can be no grievance of any kind to the writ petitioner Avinash Tiwari and therefore, the review petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that Avinash Tiwari, petitioner had filed Writ-A No.6632 of 2008 with a prayer seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay salary to the petitioner to the post of Assistant Clerk with effect from 1.10.2008. The Writ Court passed the interim order on 20.10.2008 while directing the opposite parties to make payment of regular monthly salary to Avinash Tiwari with effect from 3.9.2008 till 7.11.2008, while providing same benefit to the petitioner of Writ A No.250 (S/S) of 2007. The writ court considering the matter, finally found it appropriate to direct the District Inspector of Schools, Sultanpur to examine the matter in the light of the fact that the petitioner is in service for almost about ten years and is being paid regular salary in terms of the interim order. It is further directed that if the District Inspector of Schools comes to the conclusion that there is no erroneousness in the selection process, the financial concurrence shall be granted to the petitioner.
7. The above said order does not constitute any right in favour of Avinash Tiwari but in fact the matter was sent to the District Inspector of Schools for his consideration to grant financial concurrence on his own wisdom. This Court has also noticed the fact that the applicant, as per his own admission, is posted as Assistant Teacher LT grade in the said institution and, thus, there could be no grievance of the petitioner of any kind regarding the appointment of Avinash Tiwari on the post of Assistant Clerk as the same is neither the feeding cadre of the post of Assistant Clerk nor there is any chance that the same would affect any kind of service benefit to the review petitioner.
8. Learned counsel for the review petitioner has failed to substantiate his argument that what prejudice is caused to him if his impleadment application is in fact left for disposal.
9. The law on the scope of the review enunciated time to time is very obvious that the same can be invoked once there is apparent illegality and incorrectness on the face of the record, such as, there is misinterpretation of relevant statutory provision or ignorance or disregard including the erroneous reasoning. This Court is also mindful to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of West Bengal Central School Service Commission and others Vs. Abdul Halim and others, reported in (2019) 18 Supreme Court Cases 39.
10. This Court also finds that the present review application is appeal in disguise and thus, there is no merit in the review application.
11. Accordingly, the review application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 4.8.2025
Ram Murti
