CHITTARANJAN SAHAY Vs. ASHUTOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant review petition has been filed by above named five petitioners for review and/or recall of that part of judgment and order dated 1.4.2002 passed by a Bench of this Court in Civil Review No. 10/2002 whereby although this Court in the facts and circumstances of the case held that the review application No. 10/2002 is not maintainable because no ground warranting the review of the judgment and order dated 26,2.2002 passed in WPS No. 6006/2001 is made out, the Curt thereafter to passed a detailed and specific direction giving liberty to the petitioners therein i.e: contesting respondents -1st set lo make representation to the Central Government seeking redressal of their new grievances. For better appreciation order dated 1.4.2002 sought to be reviewed is quoted herein below :

(2.) PETITIONERS ' case is that they are the direct recruit "Insider" Officers of the erstwhile Bihar cadre of the Indian Forest Service and have been serving in the existing State of Bihar till the bifurcation of the State, All these petitioners had been allotted their home cadre of the existing Bihar on merit, on account of their high ranks in the merit list of the respective years in which they competed in the examinations for selection to the Indian Forest Service conducted by the Union Public Service Commission. After coming into force of Bihar Reorganisation Act 2000. and the resultant bifurcation of the cadre of the Indian Forest Service of the erstwhile Bihar between the two successor States, these petitioners were allocated Jharkhand cadre as per the Notification 16016/22/2000 -IFS -11, dated 14.11.2000 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest Govt. of India, in exercise of power conferred by Section 71 (4) of the Bihar Reorganisation Act. 2000 regard with Rule 5 of the Indian Forest Service (Cadre) Rules. 1966. Consequent to the allocation of cadre off the Indian Forest Service between the two successor States of Bihar and Jharkhand vide notification dated 14.11.2000, the contesting respondents -1st set, who were petitioners in the Civil Review Petition No. 10/2002 were allocated Jharkhand Cadre. Al] these contesting respondents were consequently posted in the territories now falling in the State of Jharkhand and they started their duties as members of the Jharkhand cadre of India Forest Service. It is significant to Indicate here that all these contesting respondents -1st set were Direct Recruit "Outsiders" to the erstwhile Bihar Cadre of the Indian Forest Service. However, the Government of India. Ministry of Environment and Forests issued a fresh notification dated 11.6.2001 purportedly on representation made by six officers of the IFS cadre allocated to residual Bihar Cadre, bringing into notice an anomaly which had crept In the preparation of roaster for allocation of General Category Direct Recruit "Outsider" cadre by wrongly including one officer, i.e. S.B. Gayakwad of 1984 Batch who actually belongs to SC/ST category of Direct Recruit Outsiders , To rectify the aforesaid anomaly the roster of Direct Recruit "Outsider General" as well as "Outsider SC/ST" were amended by the. Govt. of India by excluding the name of Shri S.B. Gayakwad from the roster of "Outsider General" and including it in the "Outsider SC/ST ' roster. As a result of this amendment in roster, eight officers who are Proforma Respondents herein and were private respondents in Civil Review No. 10/2002 and the Original Writ No. 6006/2001 as also the Original Application No. 95/2001. and who had earlier been allocated to the residual Bihar Cadre, were now allocated to Jharkhand cadre while nine officers earlier allocated to Jharkhand cadre were now allocated to the residual Bihar cadre.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the review petitioners. Firstly submitted that once the main relief sought by way of review petition In Civil Review No. 10/02 was held not maintainable as no grounds for warranting a review of the original order passed in the writ petition was made out then the Court ought not to have proceeded to pass categorical and specific direction in favour of those petitioners on the totally new facts, de hors their original plea in the original writ petition. Learned counsel submitted that those petitioners were the necessary and proper parties in the said Civil Review No. 10/02 and the directions given in the review petition prejudicially affected them and they become seriously aggrieved by the said direction. Learned counsel also submitted that the writ petitioners had raised totally new cause at the stage of review which they are precluded from raising within the limited scope of review jurisdiction and if such plea is raised for the first time then the persons affected had to be given opportunity of hearing by the Court. Learned counsel put reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court In the case of State of Orissa V/s. Madan Gopal Rungta, AIR (39) 1952 SC 12 and also in the case of Union of India and others V/s. Vidya Bagaria, (2004) 5 SCC 577.