ALLAHABAD HIGHCOURT, SHIKSHAK BHARTI : 68500 शिक्षक भर्ती का बहुप्रतीक्षित जिला आवंटन के लिए की गई पुनर्विचार याचिका हुई खारिज, क्लिक कर पूरा आर्डर देखें।

ALLAHABAD HIGHCOURT, SHIKSHAK BHARTI : 68500 शिक्षक भर्ती का बहुप्रतीक्षित जिला आवंटन के लिए की गई पुनर्विचार याचिका हुई खारिज, क्लिक कर पूरा आर्डर देखें।

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Reserved on 13.2.2020
Delivered on 13.5.2020
In Chamber
Civil Misc. Review/Modification Application No.42 of 2019
With
Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.37 of 2019
in
Civil Misc. Review/Modification Application No.38 of 2019
In

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19737 of 2018

Petitioner :- Shikha Singh And 48 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Ajeet Kumar Chaurasiya,Alok Dwivedi,Alok Mishra,Anubhav Chandra,Arvind Kumar Tiwari,Ashok Khare, Sr. Advocate,Avinash Jaiswal,Babu Lal Ram,Bhawani Prasad Shukla,Dinesh Kumar Yadav,Durga Charan Singh Yadav,Ganesh Kumar,Ghanshyam Das Mishra,Kalp Nath,Manoj Kumar Tiwari,Narendra Kumar,Paritosh Kumar Malviya,Pramod Kumar,Pramod Kumar Chaudhary,Rajesh Kumar,Rajesh Kumar Bind,Rajesh Kumar Srivastava,Rajiv Kumar Tripathi,Ram Sajiwan Prajapati,Ramesh Kumar,Surendra Kumar Chaubey,Tarun Agrawal,Varun Dev Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Alok Dwivedi,Ambarish Chatterji,Ashok Kumar Yadav,Harshit Pathak,Kumar Dhananjay,Rajiv Kumar Tripathi,Vijay Gautam,Vimal Kumar Mishra

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
1. This review application has been filed for review of the judgment dated 29.8.2019. By the aforesaid judgment, the writ petitions were disposed off, holding that the allotment of district to Meritorious Reserved Category Candidates is contrary to law laid down by the Apex Court and accordingly a direction was issued to the respondent no. 3, i.e., Board of Basic Education, U.P. Allahabad to carry on process of allotment of the district of Meritorious Reserved Category Candidates only, treating them to be reserved category candidates only for the purposes of allotment of district of their preference. For this purpose it was further directed that the Meritorious Reserved Category Candidates who alleged that they have not been allotted district of their preference despite being Meritorious Reserved Category Candidates, may file their applications before the respondent no. 3 and the respondent no. 3 was directed to consider and pass necessary orders as per law as stated in the judgment.
2. The present review application had been filed for review of the aforesaid judgment on the ground that the directions contained in paragraph 59 of the judgment is contrary to paragraphs 57 & 58 of the said judgment.
3. Heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Man Bahadur Singh and Sri Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri H. N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Alok Dwivedi, learned counsel, and Sri C. B. Yadav, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shiva Datta Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents.
4. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants that the direction contained in paragraph 59, i.e., limiting the direction of re-allotment of district only to Meritorious Reserved Category Candidates is contrary to paragraphs 57 & 58 of the judgment is wholly misconceived.
5. From paragraph 53 onwards of the judgment dated 29.8.2019 it is clear that the observations made in paragraph 57 of the judgment relates only to Meritorious Reserved Category Candidates and accordingly in paragraph 58 of the judgment it is specifically provided that the allotment of district made by the respondents cannot sustain in so far as it relate to Meritorious Reserved Category Candidates and to that extent it is quashed. Thus, there is no contradiction in the findings and the directions made in the judgment dated 29.8.2019.
6. Against the judgement and order dated 29.8.2019 passed in bunch of writ petitions being leading Writ Petition No. 19737 of 2018 (Shikha Singh and 48 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) a Special Appeal No.1025 of 2019 (Shikha Singh and 17 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) was preferred by the petitioners. The aforesaid special appeal was finally disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide its judgement and order dated 27.9.2013 which is reproduced hereinbelow :-
"The aforementioned special appeals have been filed by the appellants challenging the judgement and order dated 29.8.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court disposing of the writ petition No. 19737 of 2018 with certain directions contained in paragraphs no. 57,58 and 59 of the said judgment.
Heard Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Siddharth Kharey and Mr. Agnihotri Kumar Tripthi, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Mr.P.N.Saxena, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Rajeev Kumar Tripathi, Mr. H. N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Aloke Dwivedi, Mr. C.B. Yadav, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.S.D. Yadav and Mr. Ashok Mehta,learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M.S Sisodiya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, who were impleaded and heard before the writ court and learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the directions issued by the learned single judge, which are , inter alia, contained in paragraphs no. 57 and 58 of the said judgement, are contradictory and conflicting to each other. For ready reference para 57 and 58 of the said judgement are quoted below:
"57. The allocation of district and appointment and joining of the teachers in their respective districts had been completed in academic year 2018-19. The said posting and allocation of district being contrary to law and in violation of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India, cannot be sustained.
58. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the allotment of district made by the respondents cannot be sustained in so far as it relates to MRC candidates and to that extent, it is quashed."
In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellants have also referred to the direction/observation made in para 59 of the impugned judgement , which runs as under:
"59.The respondent no. 3 is directed to carry on process of allotment of district to MRC candidates only, treating them to be reserved category candidates only for the purposes of allotment of district of their preference. It is further directed that the MRC candidates who alleged that they have not been allotted district of their preference despite being MRC candidates, may file their applications before the respondent no. 3 within a period of 3 months from today and the respondent no. 3 is directed to consider and pass necessary order, as per law stated herein above within next 3 months."
Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that in para 57 of the said impugned judgement, the learned single judge has held that the posting and allocation of district being contrary to law and in violation of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India, cannot be sustained whereas in para 58 of the said judgement, learned single judge limited the direction and has held that the allotment of district made by the respondents cannot be sustained in so far as it relates to MRC candidates and to that extent it was quashed and thus the benefit has only been given to the MRC candidates and not to the general candidates. Thus, it has been prayed that the impugned order to this extent may be set aside and benefit may be given to all the candidates.
Be that as it may, in case if there is any discrepancy, contradiction or inconsistency in the operative portion of the impugned judgement, it is open for the appellants to file an application for modification/ clarification with regard to the directions contained in the operative portion of the impugned order. We hope and trust that in case any such application is filed, the same shall be disposed of as early as possible by the learned single judge after hearing the rival parties. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents state that they have no objection if the appellants approach the learned single judge for clarification/modification of the impugned order.
With the above observations, the aforementioned special appeals stand finally disposed of."
7. It appears from perusal of aforesaid order of special appeal the only direction was given by the Division Bench in special appeal was that in case there is any discrepancy, contradiction or inconsistency in the operative portion of the impugned judgement, it is open for the applicants to file an application for modification/ clarification with regard to the directions contained in the operative portion of the impugned order.
8. Pursuant to the same the present review/modification application has been filed by the petitioners. The power of review is provided under Order XXXXVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
9. It is also well settled law that the power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure is very limited and it may be exercised only on the ground that :-
(1) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed.
(2) Order made on account of some mistake.
(3) Error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason.
The law governing the scope of review that has been succinctly laid down by the Hon'ble Court in:
Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and others, (1999) 9 SCC 596 a review cannot be claimed or asked for merely for a fresh hearing or arguments, or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier.
In this case the Supreme court held as under:
"30..........
The power can be exercised on the application of a person on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. The power can also be exercised on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. A review cannot be claimed or asked for merely for a fresh hearing or arguments or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier that is to say, the power of review can be exercised only for correction of a patent error of law or fact which stares in the face without any elaborate argument being needed for establishing it. It may be pointed out that the expression "any other sufficient reason" used in Order 47 Rule 1 means a reason sufficiently analogous to those specified in the rule.
31. Any other attempt, except an attempt to correct on apparent error or an attempt not based on any ground set out in Order 47, would amount to an abuse of the liberty given to the Tribunal under the Act to review its judgment."
10. In the case of Union of India V. Tarit Ranjan Das reported in 2004 SCC (L & S) 160, it was further held by the Supreme Court that the scope for review is rather limited and it is not permissible for the forum hearing the review application to act as an appellate Court in respect of the original order, by a fresh order and rehearing the matter to facilitate a change of opinion on merits.
11. In the case of Inter Chand Jain (Dead) through Lrs. Vs. Motilal (Dead) through Lrs. reported in 2009 (14) SCC 663, it is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order.
12. In the case of Lily Thomas Vs. Union of India reported in 2000 (6) SCC 224, it was held by the Supreme Court the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise. The paragraph 56 of the aforesaid judgement is quoted hereinbelow :-
"56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. Once a review petition is dismissed no further petition of review can be entertained. The rule of law of following the practice of the binding nature of the larger Benches and not taking different views by the Benches of coordinated jurisdiction of equal strength has to be followed and practised. However, this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 136 or Article 32 of the Constitution and upon satisfaction that the earlier judgments have resulted in deprivation of fundamental rights of a citizen or rights created under any other statute, can take a different view notwithstanding the earlier judgment."

13. In the recent judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of Shivakami and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, reported in 2018 (4) SCC 587; it was again held by the Supreme Court that :-
"18. The scope of the appellate powers and the review powers, is well defined. The power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is very limited and it may be exercised only if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. The power of review is not to be confused with the appellate power. The review/application cannot be decided like a regular intra-court appeal. On the other hand, the scope of appeal is much wider wherein all the issues raised by the parties are open for examination by the appellate court."
14. A similar view has been by this Court also in Writ-A No. 2681 of 2019; Ved Prakash Vs. State of U.P. and others. In view of the aforesaid special proposition of law, a fresh hearing or argument in the garb of review application is not maintainable. The judgment is clear and the allotment of district relating to Meritorious Reserved Category Candidates has only been quashed.
15. Apart from the same no other argument has been made by the learned counsel except the arguments as noticed hereinabove. From the perusal of the facts as narrated above, it is clear that there is neither any contraction nor ambiguity in the judgment. The review applications are devoid of merits and are liable to be dismissed and the same are accordingly dismissed.
Order Dated :-13.5.2020
Pramod Tripathi
💥 68500 शिक्षक भर्ती जिला आवंटन केस:-
1- जनरल अभ्यर्थियों की तरफ से दायर की गई पुनर्विचार याचिका खारिज।
2- MRC अभ्यर्थियों की एक बार फिर जीत।

💥68500 शिक्षक भर्ती का बहुप्रतीक्षित जिला आबंटन का ऑर्डर आज रिलीज हो गया है 
आर्डर में कोई मोडिफिकेशन नही किया गया है। केवल *(आरक्षित श्रेणी के मेरिटोरियस अभियर्थियों) *MRC* को ही *पुनः आवंटन* का लाभ दिया गया है।
ज्ञात हो कि ये ऑर्डर पहले भी 29 अगस्त, 2019 को release किया गया था जिसमे  MRC को लाभ दिया गया था परंतु जनरल कैटेगरी वाले अभ्यर्थी इसमे मोडिफिकेशन की लिए कोर्ट गए थे उन्होंने याचिका दाखिल की थी कोर्ट में उनके arguments सुनने के बाद 13 फरवरी, 2020 को ऑर्डर रेजर्वे कर लिया था जिसे आज दिनांक 14 मई,2020 को 13 बजे release कर दिया गया है। जिसमे 29 अगस्त 2019 के आर्डर में कोई बदलाव नही किया गया है और याचिका को खारिज कर दिया गया है एवं सरकार को आदेशित किया है कि MRC अभियर्थियों से प्रत्यावेदन लेकर नए सेशन से उन्हें उनके गुणांक और वरीयता के अनुसार उनकी केटेगरी में उनकी मनपसंद का जनपद आवंटित करे।

👆 *@S S Yadav*

Post a Comment

0 Comments