AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Bist, J.—This petition was finally decided on 15.09.2009. The applicants were not party in the writ petition. They have moved two applications. Application No. 8877 of 2009 has been moved for their impleadment as respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in the array of parties in the writ petition. Ground shown in the application is that the applicants were necessary party in the writ petition and if the petitioners are granted designation of lecturer grade, their seniority would adversely be affected. Application No. 777 of 2009 has been moved for reviewing and recalling the judgment and order in which same ground has been taken. Another ground taken in the review application is that petitioners have misled the Court by submitting that they teach Physical Education in the Intermediate Classes whereas this fact is incorrect. Other grounds in the review application touch the merit of the case.
Heard Sri D.S. Patni, the learned Counsel for the applicants, Sri Manoj Tewari, Senior Advocate for the petitioners and Sri R.C. Arya, the learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the record.
From perusal of the record it reveals that the writ petition was filed by the writ petitioners challenging the Govt. Order dated 13.09.2008 issued by Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, Govt. of Uttarakhand, Dehradun and also against the consequential order dated 22.10.2008 passed by District Education Officer, Nainital by which benefit granted to the petitioner vide Govt. Order dated 25.10.2000 was withdrawn/cancelled. The Govt. Order dated 13.09.2008 was challenged by the writ petitioners on the ground that same was passed unilaterally and benefit granted by Govt. order No. 3263/15.08.2000/3227/90 dated 25.10.2000 was withdrawn.
Admittedly, entire case of writ petitioners was based on the Govt. Order dated 25.10.2000 by which benefit of designation of Lecturer to Assistant Teachers (Physical Education) on completion of 10 years of satisfactory service was given. This Govt. Order granting such benefit to the writ petitioners as well as to other Assistant Teachers (Physical Education) was not challenged by the review applicants, therefore, this Court does not find anything wrong in the order which is sought to be reviewed. In case, if the review applicants were aggrieved by the aforesaid Govt. Order dated 25.10.2000, they should have challenged the same before competent Court and I am of the considered view that now they cannot take this plea before this Court against the writ petitioners being given benefit of the Govt. Order dated 25.10.2000. Moreover, the writ petitioners fulfilled the requisite conditions stipulated in the aforesaid Govt. Order and this Court has rightly provided them benefit of said Govt. Order, which does not warrant any review.
Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any valid ground to review the judgment and order dated 15.09.2009 passed by this Court. No impleadment can also be permitted after the disposal of the writ petition. Consequently, the review application and impleadment application are dismissed.