Sunita Hinger vs State Of Rajasthan And Others

Dinesh Mehta, J

The present review petition has been filed against the order dated 09.05.2023, passed by this Court.

Mr. C.S. Kotwani, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that while noticing the facts of the case, this Court in para No.2 of the order dated 09.05.2023 had observed that the petitioner Sunita Hinger applied for the post of Junior Technical Assistant (Library) as an OBC Female candidate, whereas the petitioner had applied as a General category candidate.

Mr. Kotwani further argued the case on merit and submitted that having decided the basic question practically in favour of the petitioner, this Court ought to have set aside the recruitment already made and ought to have issued direction to give appointment to the petitioner, who is already working with the respondent-University for last 7-8 years.

During the course of the submission, learned counsel for the petitioner invited Court’s attention towards the copy of the merit list of LDC as well as Assistant Lab Technician (Annex.-A), filed with the review petition and pointed out that in case of the recruitment to the post of LDC, the merit list was prepared while including bonus marks.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

So far as petitioner’s contention that she had applied as a General category candidate is concerned, the contention appears to be correct. Though, such contention does not affect the merit of petitioner’s case and the decision already taken by the Court, the order dated 09.05.2023 shall be read accordingly and petitioner’s category shall be treated as General.

This Court is not much convinced with the submissions made by Mr. Kotwani that having held the action of the respondent-University erroneous, the petitioner’s writ petition ought to have been allowed.

True it is, that this Court has made observation and literally countenanced the contention raised by the petitioner but in the face of the fact that 7 years had since elapsed and the persons appointed had already been confirmed, this Court had refused to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in order to meet the ends of justice.

In relation to petitioner’s contention regarding merit list prepared by the respondent-University being Annex.-A filed with the review petition, this Court is of the view that such document was not part of the record, when the order under consideration(dated 09.05.2023) was passed.

That apart, the petitioner has simply placed on record the merit list of General category candidates, prepared for the post of LDC and not the final select list/order of appointment.

Having gone through the order under consideration (dated 09.05.2023, passed by this Court) and the review petition, this Court hardly finds any error apparent on the face of the record, for which, the order dated 09.05.2023 needs to be reviewed or interfered with.

Since, this Court has refused to interfere in the matter for the reasons narrated in the order dated 09.05.2023, no case for review is made out.

The review petition is, therefore, dismissed.