Petitioner in this Review Petition claims that he was included in the select list for appointment by way of direct recruitment to the post of 'Assistant' in the 4th respondent University. He seeks review of the judgment relying on Annexure-A1 judgment, contending that this court while disposing the writ petition has not considered the question as to whether the relevant statute of the University will permit appointment to the post of 'Assistant' any method other than direct recruitment. The Review Petitioner relies on Annexure-A1 judgment in order to content that, ratio based higher grade promotion to the post of 'Assistant' from the last grade employees is not possible because there is no provision in the University Statute enabling recruitment to the post of 'Assistant' other than by way of direct recruitment.
2. Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 contended that the Review Petitioner has no 'locus standi' since validity of the select R.P No.321/2014 -2-
list (rank list) had already expired in December, 2013. Being a service matter, the Review Petitioner cannot seek interference as long as he is not a claimant to the post of Assistant, is the contention.
3. This court is of the opinion that the question of locus standi decided herein, because prima facie this court is convinced that the petitioner has not established any grounds warranting review of the judgment. This court had only directed the University to take a decision on the claim of the writ petitioners for Higher Grade promotion, considering the relevant Government orders and also the decision already taken by the Syndicate. It was pointed out at the time of disposal of the writ petition that the Syndicate of the University held on 27-11-2010 had resolved to follow the pattern formulated by the State Government in G.O (P) No.317/35/(38)/Fin dated 14-11-1995. The subject matter involved in the writ petition was not at all related to validity of the said decision. Even assuming that the principle enumerated in Annexure-A1 judgment has got any relevance, that is only with respect to validity of the decision of the Syndicate, which was not a subject matter challenging in the writ petition. Further it is noticed that, in Annexure-A1 judgment R.P No.321/2014 -3-
this court was only dealing with an issue related to category change to the cadre of 'Assistant'. However, considering the position as mentioned above, there is no error apparent on the face of the judgment which warrants review. Contention of the petitioner is that this court had omitted notice of relevant aspects, also deserves no merit.
4. In the judgment which is sought to be reviewed, this court only directed the University to take appropriate decision on the claim of the writ petitioners. It is for the University to consider all relevant aspects and to take an appropriate decision. The judgment in question will not stand in the way of University considering any relevant legal position including precedents if any binding on them.
In the above circumstances, the review petition is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
AMG True copy P.A to Judge