SAIMA MAQBOOL Vs. OMKAR RAINA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of the application filed by applicant seeking review of the judgment dated 02.07.2018 passed by this Court in SWP No.1029/2015.

(2.) The writ petition SWP No.1029/2015 was allowed by this Court on 007.2018 holding the promotion granted in favour of the applicant-respondent No.2 as Reader by virtue of order dated 27.07.2009, impugned in the writ petition, not justified in law. This Court also quashed the promotion of the applicant as Reader granted by the High Court vide its order dated 27.07.2009. It may be noted that in paragraph No.39, in place of "Reader" the "Bench Secretary" has been written due to typographical error. Non-applicant No.1 has moved a separate application seeking correction of the aforesaid clerical error which shall be dealt with separately.

(3.) Mr. R.A.Jan, learned senior Advocate, appearing for the applicant, while elaborating the grounds on which the review is sought submits that the judgment sought to be reviewed is vitiated due to several errors apparent on the face of record. It is submitted that under Rule 6 of the High Court Staff (Condition of Services) Rules, 1968, the Chief Justice is empowered to lay down the qualification of a member of service and determine the mode of recruitment and in exercise of aforesaid power the Chief Justice of this Court vide order dated 27.02007 had approved the waiting-list for the post of Reader indicating the name of the applicant, as prepared by the Selection Committee. He also contends that as per the approval granted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, the wait list was to remain in force for a period of one year w.e.f. 01.04.2007. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel that since three vacancies of Reader became available during the currency of the wait list and therefore, the applicant being the only candidate in the wait list was considered, though belatedly, with the approval of Hon'ble the Chief Justice. It is, thus, submitted that the order dated 27.07.2009, whereby the applicant was appointed as Reader, was in consonance with law. It is next contended by the learned senior counsel that in law a selection body is competent to initiate process of selection for existing as well as anticipated vacancies and that the wait list, if legitimately prepared, could be utilized to fill up such anticipated vacancies which may fall vacant during the currency of the life of the wait list.