- (1.) Heard Mr. S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sameer Kalia, learned counsel for the review applicant, Mr. S.B. Pandey, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India along with Mr. Prashant Singh Atal, learned Senior Panel Counsel, learned Standing Counsel of the State of U.P. as well as Ms. Anjana Singh, learned Standing Counsel of State of Uttarakhand.
(2.) The review applicant has sought the review of judgment and order dated 08.09.2015 passed in writ petition no.1364 (S/B) of 2015 on the grounds that the writ petition was dismissed merely on account of the fact that the Special Leave Petition relating to petitioner's allocation to the State of Uttarakhand was dismissed, whereas entire consideration ought to have been guided in terms of the revised guidelines dated 27.03.2015.
(3.) It has been submitted that the State Advisory Committee restricted the application of the guidelines dated 27.03.2015 to class-III & IV employees only, which was discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, whereas the distinction made between class-I & II employees and class-III & IV employees in the matter of cadre allocation is not based on any intelligible differentia, which has any nexus with the object sought to be achieved. It has further been submitted that this Court had committed error in making observation that the circumstances available with the State Government to retain the petitioner were very much available to apprise the Hon'ble Supreme Court for consideration. Since the guidelines were framed on 27.03.2015, whereas the Special Leave Petition was dismissed in the month of February, 2015, there was no reason for the petitioner to apprise the guidelines to the Supreme Court. The review applicant has asserted on merit of the case also.;