- (1.) This review application has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 15.12.2006, by which the advertisement inviting applications for the posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) has been quashed.
(2.) The review petition has been filed mainly on the ground that a similar controversy had earlier arisen in respect of the last selection. Matter was settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan and another v. U.P. Public Service Commission and others, JT 2006 (4) SC 531 . The advertisement in question was challenged before this Court by filing large number of writ petitions and the same controversy was decided by this Court following the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition No. 59948 of 2006, Gopal Krishan Tiwari and others v. State of U.P. and others , vide judgment dated 2.11.2006 and the writ petitions were dismissed. Subsequently, large number of petitions were also heard and dismissed particularly Writ Petition No. 60154 of 2006, Kamlesh Kuchhal v. State of U.P. and others , by a Division Bench (consisting Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dilip Gupta), vide judgment and order dated 3.11.2006. The same has been the fate of Writ Petition No. 60318 of 2006, Vijender Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 6.11.2006 by the Bench hearing the present petition. The earlier judgments were cited as submitted by the learned Counsel appearing in the review petition. Shri Amit Sthalekar appearing for the High Court made a statement at the bar that he had argued the matter at length and referred to and relied upon the aforesaid judgments and the Court had also gone through the same, but no reference has been made to the said judgments rather a statement has been recorded that Amit Sthalekar did not advance any arguments, whatsoever.
(3.) Shri M.A. Qadeer, learned Counsel appearing for the U.P. Public Service Commission also made the same submission. Petition has been decided only on the purported concessions made by the learned Chief Standing Counsel (II) without reference to the statutory provisions under which the recruitment was sought to be made and, therefore, the review is maintainable. According to the learned Counsel for applicant, Rule 10 of the U.P. Nyayik Sewa Rules, 2001 provides for eligibility of age in the examination and there is no statutory provision granting relaxation of age at the time of recruitment. Rule 35 of the said Rules 2001 provides for relaxation for conditions of service in specific individual case which is distinguishable from the recruitment process, therefore, the review petition deserves to be allowed.;