STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. JASWANTPURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for review of our order dated 11-11-1987 passed in Miscellaneous Petition No. 928 of 1987.

(2.) THE non-applicants responded to an advertisement issued by the State Junior Service Selection Board, Bhopal and faced interview for appointment to the posts of Lower Division Teachers. The Selection Board found them suitable for those posts. Their names were included in the list of successful candidates for Hoshangabad district. About 500 persons were included in Select List. They contended that the list was arranged in order of merit. Out of that list of 500 successful candidates only 232 persons were appointed. The petitioners (non-applicants in this application) in Miscellaneous Petition No. 928 of 1987 contended that although certain posts remained vacant, 95 persons not included in the aforesaid list of 500 persons were appointed as Teachers. They claimed that those 95 posts should have been filled in from among the persons included in that Select List, If that were done, they could well have been appointed. For the reasons stated in the order dated 11/11/1987 this contention did not find favour with the Court and was rejected. The statement made by the State Government at the hearing of that Misc. Petition was that no posts were then lying vacant. It was, therefore, not possible for the Court to issue any direction to appoint the non-applicants against any post of teacher, All the same, this Court made a direction "that if vacancies occur in future, the petitioners who has been duly selected by the State Junior Service Selection Board, may be appointed against those vacancies. " (Those petitioners are non-applicants in the present application ). We, however, did not accept the contention advanced by the Government Advocate that the select list became inoperative after the expiry of a period of one year of its publication on 3-3-1986. This was so because nothing was placed before the Court to substantiate that contention. No provision contained in any Act, Rule or Notification was cited before the Court saying that such select list published by the Junior Service Selection Board exhausts itself after the expiry of any specified period. Finally, this Court concluded as under :--

(3.) THIS application has been vehemently opposed by the non-applicants. Shri V. S. Shroti, learned counsel appearing for the non-applicants, submitted that no case for reviewing our order in Misc. Petn. No. 928/87 is made out because it cannot be said that the Govt. could not trace out the Notification dated 21-11-1985 in spite of due diligence. There is no error in our order sought to be reviewed. And if there is any, it can only be corrected in appeal because the error pointed out cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record Shri Shroti, however, did not question this Court's jurisdiction to review its order passed in a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but added that review is permissible only on grounds contained in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil P. C. or on grounds analogous thereto.