LALAAKHAMA AND OTHERS Vs. RETLUANGA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner (respondent No. 1 to this review) and respondents 5 to 43 in Civil Rule No.64 (MB) of 1990 were Junior Engineers in PHE Department of Mizoram. By judgment delivered on 22.3.94 in that Civil Rule, I declared the writ petitioner to be senior to respondents 5 to 43. Now the applicants (Lalaakhama and C. Lalhmachhuana) who are also junior Engineers of PHE but not a party to the Civil Rule, have filed this application for review stating that they were senior to the writ petitioner but because of this judgment they have now become junior to him. The respondent No. 1 to this review filed counter affidavit on merit without taking objection to applicants locus standi to file the review. Respondent No. 2 (State of Mizoram, PHE Deptt.) did not file affidavit.

(2.) The relevant part of Order 47 which provides for review is as follows :

(3.) Mr. BD Das, learned counsel argued that on the facts stated this is a fit case for review of the judgment. In support he relied on : Vijay Kumar Das Vs. State of MP, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 95 ; Ram Janam Vs. State of UP, AIR 1994 SC 1722 ; C. Tanwnluaia Vs. State of Mizoram, (1994) 2GLJ 21 and Kanak Chandra Vs. Board of Secondary Education, 1995 (1) GER 116 (1995) (1) GLJ 21) . Opposing the review Mr. DK Das, learned counsel for respondent No.l relied on : Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, (1976) 1 SCC 671 ; Northern India Caterers Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1980) 2 SCC 167 ; Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 2041 . Mr. R. Das, Advocate, who appeared for the State of Mizoram (respondent No.2 to the review) on 10.6.94 has not appeared at the hearing.