WPSB/600/2018
2025 Latest Caselaw 4338 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

WPSB/600/2018 on 15 September, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

             Office Notes,
                reports,
               orders or                           COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
             proceedings
SL.
      Date   or directions
No
                  and
              Registrar's
              order with
              Signatures
                             MCC No.6064 of 2025 (Review Application)
                             MCC No.6066 of 2025 (Review Application)
                             In
                             WPSB No.281 of 2019
                             With
                             MCC No.18069 of 2024 (Review Application)
                             In
                             WPSB No.600 of 2018
                             With
                             MCC No.18125 of 2025 (Review Application)
                             In
                             WPSB No.601 of 2018
                             Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
                             Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

Mr. Abhijay Negi, learned counsel for the Petitioners.

2. Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel, for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. Mr. Yogesh Pacholiya, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.

4. Review applications have been filed along with delay condonation applications. For the reasons indicated in the delay condonation applications, the same are allowed, and the delay in filing review applications is hereby condoned.

5. These writ petitions were decided by this Court vide judgment dated 17.10.2024, by taking statement made by the learned State Counsel on record.

6. Today, matter is listed on the review applications.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that review applicants were interveners in the writ petitions decided on 17.10.2024, and there is nothing in the judgment which may entitle them to seek review of the judgment.

8. Learned counsel for the review applicants submits that his clients, though, were engaged on contract as Instructor in different Government Polytechnics, however, they were orally disengaged in the year 2018, and they have not been permitted to serve as Instructor thereafter.

9. These writ petitions were decided in terms of assurance given by learned State Counsel that claim of contract employees engaged as Instructor shall be considered for regularization as per the applicable Rules.

10. Petitioners concede that they are out of employment since last more than seven years, therefore, no relief can be given to them, at the stage of review.

11. We find substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel that review of an order can be made only, if there is an apparent error on the face of record. In the absence of any error apparent, we do not find any reason to review the judgment dated 17.10.2024.

12. Accordingly, the review applications are dismissed. However, the review applicants shall be at liberty to approach appropriate forum for relief of reengagement.

(Ashish Naithani, J) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J)

15.09.2025 NR/Akash