AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, C.J—Heard Mr. L. Roshmani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Th. Ibohal, learned Advocate General appearing for the state respondents and Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the respondents No. 4 & 5.
This review petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 2.9.2014 passed in W.P.(c) No. 787 of 2013. Out of the 12 petitioners in the writ petition, petitioner No. 1, 2, 3 and 6 have filed this review. A preliminary objection was raised by the learned A.G. appearing for the state respondents and also Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the private respondents with regard to maintainability of the review petition on the ground that challenging the above judgment and order, a writ appeal has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners does not dispute filing of the writ appeal against the above judgment and order but submitted that since the writ appeal cannot be heard due to non availability of bench, the review petitioners had no other option except filing of this review petition. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the parties were requested to submit on merit of the review petition.
The only ground urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in course of his submission is with regard to the question as to whether UGC Regulation of 2010 had been adopted by the state Government in its entirety or in part. It is submitted by learned counsel for the review petitioners that 2010 UGC Regulations had not been adopted by the State Government in its entirety and was adopted in part so far as it relates to revision of pay and age of superannuation. On the basis of such submission, it was further contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Review petitioners that the finding arrived at by the Court in para 13 of the impugned judgment that the UGC Regulation of 2010 had been adopted by the state Government in its entirety is factually not correct. The learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners in order to substantiate his submission called upon the learned counsel appearing for the respondents to produce any document which would indicate that the 2010 Regulation of UGC had been adopted in its entirety. In support of his contention, reliance was placed on an order passed by the Governor of Manipur on 4th June, 2014 in Annexure R/3 which shows that the Government of Manipur had not adopted the UGC Regulation of 2010 in toto i.e. effective date of implementation of actual payment of pay and age of superannuation for college librarians etc.
Learned A.G. as well as Shri H.S. Paonam, learned Sr. Counsel referring to the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition submitted that the 2010 Regulation of UGC had been adopted by the State Government in its entirety as UGC guidelines cannot be adopted in part. Moreover, it was further contended that in a Review petition, even a wrong finding cannot be rectified in review and it''s confined only to clerical error or errors apparent on the face of the record.
While rendering the finding with regard to adoption of UGC Regulation of 2010 in the impugned judgment, it is observed that the petitioners admitted in para 17 of the writ petition that essential qualifications prescribed for the post of principal (Readers Grade) Government colleges which was contained in column 7 of the recruitment rules was amended only on 30.6.2010 by the regulation in Annexure A/2. It was also admitted that the Government of Manipur has adopted the UGC Regulation of 2010 on 12.8.2011 reference to which has been made by the petitioners in Annexure A/7 to the writ petition. Under terms of UGC Regulation of 2010, pay scales of different categories of college teachers had been fixed. Court also further observed that State Government in its additional counter affidavit claimed that UGC Regulation of 2010 had been adopted by the State Government. Since a dispute has been raised as to whether there was any such admission on the part of the petitioners in para 17 of the writ petition with reference to Annexure A/7 or not, I looked into the averments made in para 17 of the writ petition with reference to Annexure A/7. It is true that there is no specific admission on the part of the petitioners in the said paragraph with regard to adoption of 2010 Regulation of UGC by the State Government but it is stated that in the present case essential qualification prescribed for the post of Principal (Reader''s Grade) Government Colleges which was contained in column 7 of the Recruitment Rules in Annexure A/2 was amended only on 30.6.2010 by the above Regulation of UGC and the same was adopted by the State Government on 12.8.2011. Apart from the above, if the UGC guidelines of 2010 had been adopted only in respect of revision of pay, age of superannuation and not with regard to appointment, there was no necessity on the part of the State Government to pass an order on 22nd July, 2013 for establishment of Internal Quality Assurance Cell in all Government Colleges with Principals of Government Colleges as Chairperson as per the UGC guidelines.
In view of the above order of the Government of Manipur in Annexure R/7 to the affidavit-in-opposition of the Respondent No. 2 to the additional affidavit of the petitioner it is difficult to accept the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners that the UGC guidelines of 2010 had not been adopted in its entirety.
Even accepting the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners to be correct, finding arrived at in para 13 of the impugned judgment and order may render the Judgment to be wrong judgment and undisputedly, a wrong judgment cannot be rectified in a Review petition and can only be rectified in Appeal. I, therefore, find no merit in the Review petition and accordingly dismiss the same.