UMAKANT SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present set of writ petitions was disposed of by a Full Bench of this Court comprising two of us (Binod Kumar Roy, J. and S. K. Phaujdar, J.) as also Hon'ble G. S. N. Tripathi, J. (since retired) on 30-6-1998. Three review applications had been preferred by S/sri Shri Prakash Jain, Ashok Kumar Kakkar and Vinod Kumar Verma. While the review matters were being heard, an ap plication was moved by Sri Umakantshar-ma for rectifying certain clerical errors in giving the serial numbers of the respon dents for whom certain directions were given in the writ petition. All these matters were heard together.

(2.) THE first two review petitioners happened to be respondents No. 12 and 18 in Writ Petition No. 35384 of 1995 in which the impugned judgment was passed. THE review petitioner, Vinod Kumar Verma, was, however, the petitioner him self in Writ Petition No. 36493 of 1997, one of the matters in the above set of writ petitions. THE grounds taken up by the first two review petitioners are identical while those taken by Vinod Kumar Verma are different from them. S/sri Shri Prakash Jain and Ashok Kumar Kakkar desired a review of the judgment on the ground that they had no knowledge so far the records of the Registry were concerned and so far the decisions taken from time to time by the Full Court/hon'ble the Chief Justice and they could know the true state of af fairs only after the pronouncement of the judgment and could know that the number of vacancies for the relevant recruitment was not properly reported by the Registry and, as such, the Court was misled on im portant facts. It was further argued that the decision of a Full Bench of this High Court in the case of Shri Kant Tripathi & Anr. v. State of U. P. & Ors. 1987 UPLBEC 222 was never placed before the High Court and there had been an error ap parent on the face of record for not follow ing the dictum of the Full Bench in the aforesaid case. THE review petitions were accompanied by applications of condona tion of delay on the basis of certain office reports that the petitions had been filed beyond time. We may indicate at the outset that in the writ jurisdiction the Court has an inherent power to review its own judg ment and although the provisions of Order XLII are not applicable in letters, but the broad principles under which a judgment may be reviewed under the provisions of Order XLVII, C. P. C. are ap plicable to the power of review in the writ jurisdiction. A writ petition is not barred on the ground of delay, although the Court may not entertain such a petition on the ground of laches on the part of the petitioner, Similarly, an application for review of a judgment recorded in a writ jurisdiction may not be barred by limita tion, but it would always be open to the scrutiny of the Court if the review petitioner was guilty of laches.

(3.) AS regards the decision of the Full Bench in Shri Kant Tripathi's case (supra), we find on a reading of the judgment that even if this judgment had been placed before the Full Bench, it would not have affected the judgment in any manner so far interpretation of Rule 8 (2) of the U. P. Higher Judicial Service Rules was con cerned for conversion of some posts in the quota of 'direct recruits' to the quota of 'promotees'.