RAJINDER SINGH Vs. LT GOVERNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present hearing arises out of an application for review and/or for recalling of the order dated 22.12.2003 passed by Justice D.K. Seth and Justice Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, High Court, Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair, in connection with W.P.C.T. No. 214 of 2003 (Lt. Governor & Ors. vs. Rajinder Singh), whereby and whereunder it was held by the aforesaid Division Bench that "we are of the view that the respondent is not entitled to any relief as revealed from the facts disclosed. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 3rd September, 2003 passed in O.A. No. 90/A & N/2002 by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, Circuit at Port Blair, is hereby set aside." It was further directed by the aforesaid Division Bench that the petition before the learned Tribunal stands dismissed.

(2.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of the Division Bench, the respondent/petitioner has come up with an application for review and/or praying for recalling the order dated 22.12.2003 alleging mainly that certain documents i.e. the minutes of the Screening Committee held on 26.3.1989 and 4.3.1992 could not be placed before the aforesaid Division Bench despite due diligence by the present petitioner and the aforesaid Division Bench also failed to consider the administration's letter dated 10th January, 1995, wherein, other lecturers' services were regularized from the initial date of their ad hoc appointment after clearance from the UPSC on the directions of the learned Tribunal and awarded them seniority with all other consequential benefits.

(3.) It has also been alleged by the petitioner that the aforesaid Division Bench failed to consider the real issue involved in the matter itself and as such the Division Bench fell in error by not considering the facts that the services of the petitioner were regularized in consultation with the UPSC in accordance with the Recruitment Rules w.e.f. 23.9.76 on its merits and as such the aforesaid Division Bench has also committed an error of fact by overlooking the documents relied on by the petitioner, particularly, the documents showing bias on the part of the respondents/members of the Screening Committee and it has also been alleged by the petitioner that the false submissions made by the respondents in their affidavits which has a direct bearing in the case of the petitioner has laid to a finding in which error apparent on the face of the record is visible. It has also been alleged that the aforesaid Division Bench also overlooked numerous documents which have been mentioned in para XII of the aforesaid application.