Ashok Singh vs Chief Education Officer And Another

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

The application seeking condonation of delay in filing this Review Application is not opposed by Mr. B.P.S. Mer, learned Brief Holder for the State

of Uttarakhand; and the delay is, therefore, condoned.

Heard Mr. Shiv Pande, learned counsel for the review applicant and Mr. B.P.S. Mer, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand; and, with

their consent, the Review application is disposed of.

The review applicant herein had earlier invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing Writ Petition (S/B) No. 472 of 2016. By an interim order

passed in the said Writ Petition on 19.12.2016, a Division Bench of this Court had provisionally permitted the review applicant to participate in the

Interview for the sole post of Principal. The result was, however, made subject to the final outcome of the Writ Petition.

Writ Petition (S/B) No. 472 of 2016 was finally heard and decided by a Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 12.06.2017 wherein it was

held that the advertisement or the Regulations did not create any restriction that any document, in support of the principal application, would be barred

if it is for the main advertisement; the experience certificate ought to have been taken into consideration; on account of the fact that the review

applicant had already participated in the interview, and the result had been made subject to the decision of the Writ Petition on the basis of the interim

order, owing to what had been stated in the order, the Writ Petition was allowed and a mandamus was issued to the respondent to assign/calculate

marks of the second certificate of experience submitted by the review applicant, along with his application dated 03.08.2016, and to recalculate his

marks in accordance with Chapter II after providing him the benefit of marks to be awarded for experience; the result of his participation may be

declared within two weeks thereafter; and his name be included in the list of top 7 candidates, if he satisfied the requirement of being a successful

candidate.

The review applicant, on being permitted to participate in the selection process in view of the interim order passed by this Court, stood at Serial No.

8 and, as he was not among the top seven candidates, he was not called for interview. This Court, in its order in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 81 of 2018

dated 11.06.2018, took note of the fact that, while the review applicant had secured 77.46 marks, the last selected candidate (the seventh candidate)

had secured 80.75 marks; and the review applicant had, therefore, not been found suitable on the basis of the marks obtained by him. The Writ

Petition was dismissed holding it to be without merit.

Mr. Shiv Pande, learned counsel for the review applicant, would submit that after the order of this Court, in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 81 of 2018

dated 11.06.2018, the certificates of all the candidates were scrutinized; it was found that the certificates of three candidates, one above the petitioner

in the merit list and two below him, were forged and fabricated; consequent on these three candidates being disqualified, the review applicant stood at

Serial No. 7 in the list of the candidates to be called for interview, for selection to the sole post of Principal; after the interview was held, the review

applicant was ranked at Serial No. 1 among those seven candidates called for interview; consequently he ought to have been appointed as a Principal;

and he was, however, not appointed only on the ground that Writ Petition (S/B) No. 81 of 2018 filed by him was dismissed by the Division Bench.

All these incidents, which the review applicant now refers to, took place subsequent to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ

Petition (S/B) No. 81 of 2018 dated 11.06.2018. It would be wholly inappropriate for us to review the said order dated 11.06.2018 based on events

which took place subsequent thereto.

Suffice it to observe that, since the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 81 of 2018 dated 11.06.2018, was

based on events which took place prior thereto, the said order shall have no bearing on events which took place subsequently.

Subject to the aforesaid observations, the Review Application is dismissed. No costs.