PRASANNA BORAH Vs. GOBINDA LAL CHAKROBORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review petition is directed against the order dtd. 20/6/2013 passed in W.P(C) No. 4433/2012 and other connected writ petitions. Vide order dtd. 20/6/2013, these writ petitions were closed by recording the statement in the affidavit dtd. 6/6/2013 filed by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Secondary) Department that B.Ed/B.T. Degree is necessary for the posts of Inspector of Schools and that the appointment to the posts of Inspector of Schools may be made out of the candidates having such qualifications.

(2.) According to the review petitioners, the stand reflected in the affidavit filed by the Department was wrongly recorded in the order under review. Consequent thereto, although the Service Rules governing the recruitment of Inspectors of School does not prescribe, B.T./B. Ed as a prescribed qualification for recruitment to the post of Inspector of Schools, but in view of the order dtd. 20/6/2013 passed in W.P(C) No. 4433/2012 and other connected W.P(C)s which is sought to be reviewed, a writ petition being W.P (C) No. 5752/2013 has been filed before this Court, whereby the appointments of the Review Petitioners to the posts of Inspectors have been put to challenge as being violative and contrary to the order dtd. 20/6/2013 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4433/2012 and other connected W.P (C)s. It is the case of the review petitioners that the order dtd. 20/6/2013 passed in W.P(C) No. 4433/2012 and other connected writ petitions, which is under review, having wrongly recorded the stand reflected in the affidavit dtd. 6/6/2013 filed by the Department and the W.P.(C)s having been disposed of with a direction that appointments to the post of Inspector of Schools may be made out of candidates having such qualifications, the appointments of the Review Petitioners as Inspector of Schools have been put to challenge by way of W.P(C) No. 5752/2013, which is presently pending disposal before this Court. Being aggrieved by the said order dtd. 20/6/2013 passed in W.P(C) No. 4433/2012 which according to the petitioners is an error apparent on the face of the record and thus the present review petition has been filed on the following grounds:

(3.) The learned counsels for the parties have been heard. Pleadings on record have been carefully perused. We have also perused the order dtd. 20/6/2013 under review and the affidavit dtd. 6/6/2013 filed by the Department.