SWAMINADHAN KRISHNAN Vs. GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY(GNLU)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present application has been preferred by the applicants herein - original petitioners for review / recall of the judgment and order dated 29.08.2017 passed by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.364/2017, by which this Court has dismissed the said appeal by a detailed judgment and order and has confirmed the detailed judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.6296/2016.

(2.) Shri Dipak Dave, learned Advocate, who did not represent the appellants earlier at the time when the Letters Patent Appeal was decided and disposed of, has appeared on behalf of the applicants - original appellants and Shri Mihir Thakore, learned Counsel has appeared on behalf of the University. It is the case on behalf of the applicants that the Executive Council in its 19th meeting held on 04.10.2011 approved the conversion of the contractual appointment to permanent employment of such contractual appointees and that the minutes of the meeting dated 04.10.2011 (19th meeting of the Executive Council) held of the Executive Council approved by the General Council in its meeting held on 21.01.2012. Therefore, it is the case on behalf of the applicants that a conscious decision was taken by the General Council to approve the minutes of meeting of the Academic Council, Finance Committee and the Executive Council held between VIIth and VIIIth General Council Meeting. It is the case on behalf of the applicants that at the relevant time when the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal was decided, only half of the documents - half of the minutes of meeting of the Executive Council in its 19th meeting dated 04.10.2011 was produced which has now been produced with full minutes. It is submitted that therefore the full decision of the Executive Council approved by the General Council on 21.01.2012 was not brought to the notice of this Court which is now produced. It is submitted that therefore the applicants were converted in permanent establishment.

(3.) Present application is vehemently opposed by Shri Mihir Thakore, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent University. It is submitted that whatever submissions were made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, are as such considered by this Court while deciding and disposing of the Letters Patent Appeal. It is submitted that each and every aspect more particularly whether the applicants herein - original appellants were continued to be on contractual appointments has been considered and dealt with in detail. It is submitted that now again and again the same is argued. It is submitted that therefore when no new material / case is made out and the true nature of the appointment of the applicants, whether the applicants were made permanent in the permanent establishment or they continued to be as contractual appointees, the aforesaid has been considered in detail while deciding and disposing of the main Letters Patent Appeal. Therefore, in the review application, the applicants cannot be permitted to again reagitate the same issue.