LONGSING TERANG Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri P.K. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the applicants, who by means of this application has prayed for review of the judgment and order dtd. 18/8/2016 passed in WP(C)5660/2009. Also heard Shri J. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, KAAC, Shri M.K. Boro, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 9, 14, 29, 37, 44, 47, 48, 60, 75, 77, 80 and 81, Shri M. Agar-walla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 10, 17, 27, 34, 49, 52, 57, 59, 65, 67, 73 and 78, Shri M. Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 12, 13, 15, 21, 43, 46, 50, 51, 53, 55, 66, 68, 74, 82, 83, 85 and 86, and Shri P. Hazarika, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 22, 24, 28, 31, 42 and 63.

(2.) Two applicants have preferred this review against the aforesaid judgment as mentioned. The principal ground of review is that a particular point urged in the writ petition was not considered at all while the judgment dtd. 18/8/2016 was delivered. It is contended that there were a bunch of writ petitions which were disposed of by the common judgment and order dtd. 18/8/2016.

(3.) Shri P.K.R. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that a categorical point taken in the writ petition was that in the impugned selection for the posts of Assistant Teacher in the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, reservation was not followed which was in violation of the statute. It has further been contended that in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, the said point instead of being disputed, was, to the contrary admitted. He, therefore, contends that the entire selection was vitiated due to non-following of the reservation policy which is mandatory in nature. He submits that the learned Single Judge while passing the aforesaid judgment did not even consider the aforesaid aspect which was in fact an admitted position. The learned counsel has already drawn the attention of this Court to an order dtd. 10/2/2017 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Writ Appeal 38/2017 whereby a liberty was given to the appellants in that case to prefer a review.