SMT. FOLGUNI LASKAR Vs. THE STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners sought review of the common judgment and order, dated 26.02.2016, passed by this Court in WP(C) No.172 of 2015 and other writ petitions, in respect of the directions of this Court contained in Paragraph 87 [ sub -Para (vi), (vii) and (viii)] of the judgment.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel, Mr. D.K.Biswas for the petitioners and learned Advocate General assisted by learned counsel, Mr. B. Banerjee for the State -respondents.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Biswas that the petitioners were interveners in the writ petitions, disposed by impugned judgment dated 26.02.2016. They were not allowed to submit pleadings but argument advanced on behalf of the interveners i.e. the petitioners herein were heard by the Court. It is further submitted by Mr. Biswas, learned counsel that the petitioners were aggrieved by the directions contained in paragraph 87 [(vi), (vii) and (viii)] since those directions were not inconformity with the UGC guidelines in respect of selection of candidates for the post of Assistant Professor. According to Mr. Biswas, UGC was a party in the writ petitions but the relevant guidelines of UGC, which is the Apex body were not taken to the notice of the Court and, therefore, the directions contained in Para 87 issued by this Court are not only detrimental to the interest of the petitioners but apparently contrary to the guidelines of the UGC and hence, the directions are required to be reviewed. He has also submitted that API score is not required for the selection of Assistant Professor and that the reservation must be on cadre basis and not subject basis. Those were mistake apparent on the face of the record and so, the review application should be entertained and disposed of on merit.