AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anu Sivaraman, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
These review petitions are filed alleging that the contentions raised by the review petitioner in the writ appeals had not been specifically considered by the Division Bench. It is further submitted that the SLP had been dismissed in limine and that therefore, the review petitions are maintainable. Further, it is contended that in view of Annexure A5 document, which was obtained by the review petitioner under the Right to Information Act from the respondent University, it would be clear that the 2nd respondent in R.P.Nos.292/2022 and 306/2022 was not eligible or qualified in terms of the notification or the UGC guidelines for appointment to the post of Associate Professor in Meteorology under the CUSAT.
Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the appeals had been considered and disposed of after considering all the contentions raised by the parties thereto. The contentions raised in the review petitions with regard to the documents produced by the 2nd respondent in W.A. Nos.1356/2019 and 1664/2019 were also considered at paragraph 13 of the judgment. Further, the Bench had also specifically held that since the selection to the post was made in accordance with the UGC Regulations, there was no reason to interfere with the same and since the matter is being decided on available facts, it is not necessary to make mention of the judgments cited.
Though we are in agreement with the learned counsel for the review petitioner that a review petition would be maintainable since the SLP had been dismissed in limine, we are of the opinion that the grounds raised in these review petitions do not justify a review of the judgment. Annexure A5, which is a document obtained by the review petitioner by making Annexure A4 query under the Right to Information Act, after the dismissal of the SLP, cannot be a ground to review a judgment which was rendered on the facts available on record and after hearing the contentions of all the parties and after considering such contentions at considerable length.
In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that these review petitions are not liable to be entertained. The review petitions fail and the same are, accordingly, dismissed.