USHA DEVI Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has impugned, in this appeal filed under Section 10 of the Letters patent Act, orders dated 28th May, 2010 passed by the learned Single judge of this Court thereby dismissing the review petition filed by the appellant seeking review of judgment dated 17th May, 2007 passed in Writ Petition (c) 262/2007. THE aforesaid writ petition was filed seeking directions to the respondents to appoint her on the post of Laboratory Assistant in the Health and Family Welfare Department. THE writ petition was dismissed on the ground of laches and delays vide orders dated 17th May, 2007. THE appellant/petitioner filed review petition seeking review of this order in which the appellant has remained unsuccessful as this review is also dismissed on the ground that there is no error apparent on the fact of record which the appellant could point out in the orders dated 17th May, 2007. Before taking note of these two orders, we may recapitulate the factual matrix in brief.

(2.) THE appellant applied for the post of Laboratory Assistant in the Heath and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 1.3.1999 in terms of advertisement dated 1.3.1999 published in Hindustan Times newspaper vide advertisement no. 002/99. THE appellant appeared in the entrance examination held by DSSSB for the post of Lab Assistant. THE respondent no.1 & 2 declared the result for the post of Lab Assistant for the candidate belonging to OBC category and the appellant was provisionally selected for the post of Laboratory Assistant. THE respondent directed the appellant to submit relevant certificates.

(3.) THE review petition was filed by the appellant on the ground that it was not mandatory for the candidate applying for the post to obtain the diploma from an institute recognized by AICTE. THE appellant had sought information to this effect by filing an application under the RTI Act. This information the appellant got from the concerned Department but the reply receipt was not clear. THE learned Single Judge has, however, held that the appellant has not been able to point out any error in the order dated 17th May, 2007 which is apparent on the face of the record. We would like to reproduce the relevant portion of the order, below:- Counsel for the petitioner seeks to draw the attention of this Court to a certificate dated 19.7.2005 issued by the All India Institute of Local Self Government to the effect that it was a recognized educational institute by the Government of Maharashtra and hence the diploma certificate in MLT issued n favour of the petitioner, is valid. Considering the fact that the advertisement to the post of Laboratory Assistant was issued by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, recognition of the MLT course, if any, has to be as per the norms laid down by the said Department and/or the DSSSB. Even otherwise, this was not the case urged by the petitioner in the writ petition. THE only ground taken by the petitioner in her writ petition was that the respondent wrongly ignored the diploma obtained by her in MLT, which was from a regular institution duly approved by the Government of Maharashtra. As against this, the stand of the Govt. of NCT was that the said diploma was not issued by any recognized institute, i.e. AICTE or any other Govt. Organization/Institution. For the petitioner to state today that the aforesaid Recruitment Rules did not require that the diploma in MLT be issued by an institution recognized by the AICTE or that after passing of the order dated 17.5.2007, the petitioner approached the respondents No.1 & 2 by way of an application filed under the RTI Act for seeking certain details regarding the Rules, cannot be a ground to seek review of the order dated 17.5.2007. THE petitioner has not been able to point out any error in the order dated 17.5.2007, which is apparent on the face of the record. New facts cannot be urged by the petitioner at this stage to seek recall of the order. In fact, what the petitioner is seeking under the garb of review, is a rehearing of the petition, which is not permissible. A review application cannot be treated as a substitute for an appeal. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.5.2007, her remedy lies elsewhere.