Smt. Meera Barnwal vs State of U.P. and Others

Rajiv Sharma, J.—Heard Mr. Alok Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant.

The petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher vide order dated 30.6.1986, whereby it was specifically provided that the services of the petitioner can be terminated at any time. Accordingly, services of the petitioner were terminated and this Court, vide judgment and order dated 17.3.2010, dismissed inter alia on the ground that in view of the law down in the case of The Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, , the petitioner has no legal right for appointment on the post in question.

Thereafter, the instant application has been preferred on the ground that the petitioner was appointed on the post in question in Shishu Shala & Balwari Kendra Malkegaon, Raibareli in the pay scale of Rs. 185-3-215, vide appointment letter dated 30.6.1986 issued by the opposite party No. 3. Therefore, the petitioner''s appointment was made against the clear vacancy, as the letter of appointment shows that it is an ad hoc appointment and in similarly situated persons, namely, Km. Usha Devi Singh has already been regularized in the department.

A query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner that as to whether the appointment, on the post in question, though ad hoc, was in accordance with rules or not, to which learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointment is not an ad hoc appointment. He fails to point out that while appointing her, the recruitment rules are followed and as such, the appointment is dehors rules. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the case Vijai Singh Verses The Kamla Nehru Institute of Science and Technology, Sultanpur And Others 2007 (25) LCD 1591 and Muneshwar Dayal Vs. Zila Karyakram Adhikari, Bijnor and others, relied upon by the petitioner''s Counsel are not applicable in the instant case.

As regards the maintainability of the application for recall of final judgment, it is well settled that after disposal of the writ petition, only an application for review or clarification can be made, but no further relief can be prayed for.

A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rakesh Chandra Srivastava v. Santosh Kumar Mishra 2003 All. L.J. 838 has held that after dismissal of writ petition, only an application for review or clarification can be made, but no miscellaneous application can be entertained. Thus, the proper recourse available to the applicant was to file review application under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with Rule 14 of Chapter IX of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.

In view of the above, the proceedings of the writ petition cannot be revived and the application for recall is liable to be rejected.

For the reasons aforesaid, no good ground is made out for recalling the order and the application is rejected.