WPSS/1174/2022
2023 Latest Caselaw 1194 UK

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                         COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  Review Application (MCC No. 2 of 2023)
                                  Delay Condonation Application (IA No. 3 of 2023)
                                  Misc. Application (I.A. No. 5 of 2023)
                                  In
                                  WPSS No. 1174 of 2022
                                  Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, Standing Counsel with Mr. V.S. Rawat, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Hemant Singh, Advocate for the review applicant.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. There is delay of 102 days in filing the review application application.

4. For the reasons indicated in delay condonation application, the same is allowed and the delay in filing review application is condoned.

5. This writ petition was decided on 31.08.2022 in terms of judgment rendered in WPSS No. 825 of 2020, and the following direction was issued:-

"Since learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that controversy involved in these writ petitions has been decided by this Court in WPSS No. 825 of 2020 decided on 17.05.2022, therefore, these writ petitions are also disposed of in terms of judgment dated 17.05.2022 rendered in WPSS No. 825 of 2020. Since result of the petitioners is kept in a sealed cover, pursuant to order of this Court, therefore, the concerned respondent is directed to declare their result. If petitioners are found suitable/ eligible for promotion, then the Competent Authority shall issue order of promotion in favour of petitioners as per Rules, which prevailed before 23.12.2019."

6. Today, matter is listed on a review/recall application filed by one Ms. Tanuja Pant. Review applicant contends that she was eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade (Mathematics), however, her chance of promotion has been taken away because of the judgment rendered in this writ petition.

7. The case of petitioner in the writ petition was that prior to amendment in recruitment Rules, made in the year 2019, she was eligible, however, by the said amendment, her eligibility was taken away.

8. This Court relied upon a judgment rendered by Division Bench in which it was held that the amendment made in the recruitment Rules in 2019, is not retrospective, therefore, it cannot be made applicable to petitioners.

9. The review applicant contends that writ-petitioner is not eligible for promotion, as she possesses B.Ed. (Special Education) qualification, which is meant for teaching children with special needs, therefore, petitioner is not eligible to be appointed/promoted as Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade (Mathematics), in regular schools.

10. This Court is not inclined to review the order, as there is no error apparent in the order sought to be reviewed. In the operative portion of order dated 31.08.2022, this Court had only directed the Competent Authority to declare result of petitioner with further direction to issue order of promotion, if petitioner is found suitable/eligible, for promotion.

11. Thus question of eligibility of petitioner for promotion was left open to be examined by the Competent Authority. Therefore, the question, which review applicant has sought to agitate cannot be permitted to be agitated. There is no scope for invoking review jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of the case.

12. Accordingly, review application is rejected. It shall be open to review applicant to seek her remedy elsewhere.

13. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 28.04.2023 Navin