Page No.# 1/4 vs Rupak Borah And 4 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 2489 Gua

                                                                    Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010152682020




                       THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                         Case No. : Review.Pet./103/2020

         THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, ASSAM AND ANR.
         KAHILIPARA, GUWAHATI-19, ASSAM.

         2: THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER
          SIVASAGAR
          DIST.- SIVASAGAR
         ASSAM

         VERSUS

         RUPAK BORAH AND 4 ORS.
         III GD R 004221, SON OF SRI TILAK BARUAH, R/O- JERENGA NAGAR, P.O
         JOYSAGAR, PIN- 785665, ASSAM.

         2:BIKASH BORDOLOI
          004117 IV GD
          SON OF SRI SADA BORDOLOI
          R/O- BELIMUKHIA KOHQARGAON
          P.O. SATIASIGA
          DIST.- SIVASAGAR
         ASSAM.

         3:THE STATE OF ASSAM
          REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
          PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI- 781006
         ASSAM.

         4:THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE

          SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT
          UZANBAZAR
          GUWAHATI- 781004
                                                               Page No.# 2/4

             ASSAM.

             5:THE DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER

             SIVASAGAR
             DIST.- SIVASAGAR
             ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. D SAIKIA

Advocate for the Respondent : MS. N PHUKAN (R1,2)




                                  BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

                                          ORDER

26.07.2022

Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the review petitioners. Also heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 &

2.

2. The petitioners have prayed for a review of the judgment dated 03.05.2018 passed in WP(C) No.2001/2011, on the ground that the writ petition had been disposed of, with a direction issued to the review petitioners to appoint the respondent no.1 to the post of ME School Teacher and the respondent no.2 to a Grade-IV vacancy in Sivasagar District.

3. The counsel for the review petitioners submits that the direction passed for appointing the respondent no.1 (writ petitioner no.1) to the post of ME School Teacher, had been inadvertently made by this Court, Page No.# 3/4

without considering the fact that there were only two vacant posts of ME School Teacher in Sivasagar District. As two other persons with disability, who had secured higher marks than the respondent no.1 and who were placed higher in the select/merit list, had been appointed against the two vacant posts of ME School Teachers in Sivasagar District, there was no further vacancy for appointing the respondent no.1 to the post of ME School Teacher in Sivasagar District.

4. He submits that the review petitioners in their affidavit-in- opposition filed in WP(C) No.2001/2011, had categorically stated that the respondent no.1 was shown at Sl. No.7 in the district-wise merit list of visually impaired candidates against the post of ME School Teacher in the office of the DEEO, Sivasagar, under the Directorate of Elementary Education, Assam. However, as there were only two vacant posts available against ME School Teachers, which had been filled up by more meritorious candidates, there was no further vacancy to accommodate the respondent no.1. He submits that the Annexures that had been annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Social Welfare Department had not been considered by this Court, while disposing of the writ petition.

5. Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 & 2 submits that this Court had passed the impugned judgment dated 03.05.2018 in WP(C) No.2001/2011 on the basis of the records available before it. As the review petitioners are now trying to carve out a case of review on the basis of available records, the same would amount to Page No.# 4/4

deciding a decision already made in the main writ petition. He submits that the review petitioners can always avail the remedy of filing an appeal, if they are aggrieved by the impugned judgment.

6. On considering the fact that the ground of challenge made by the review petitioners, is that the writ petition had been disposed of without considering all the documents submitted in the writ petition, this Court is of the view that no case of review has been made out. Further, there is nothing to show that there has been some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Further, a review petition cannot partake the character of an appeal, as held by the Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal & others vs Kamal Sengupta & another, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 612.

7. As no case for review has been made out, the review petition is dismissed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant