- (1.) This Review Petition seeks review of the judgment dated 14.3.2001 rendered by a Division Bench consisting of R.S. Mongia and K.C. Gupta, JJ. in CWP. No. 13597 of 1999. The prayer of the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition was for quashing the appointment of respondent Nos. 3 to 7. A direction was sought to the respondents-Board to absorb the petitioners on the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) with effect from the date when other direct recruits were appointed on the post or in the alternative with effect from the date of availability of the vacancy. The writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed. A perusal of the judgment shows that all the arguments raised by the petitioner were considered and rejected by this Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents-Board had placed on record marks obtained by the petitioners and the private respondents in the interview as well as in the written examination. Counsel for the petitioners prayed that marks obtained by other selected candidates be also supplied to the petitioners. Consequently, a direction was issued to the respondents-Board to supply the information to the petitioners' counsel within three weeks. The other point raised by the counsel for the petitioners was that those persons who had applied in the reserved category like Scheduled Castes etc. could only be considered in that Category and not as a General Category candidate. This argument was rejected with the observation that a candidate belonging to the Reserved Category has a dual right of consideration i.e. one amongst the General Category Candidates and the other amongst the Reserved Category Candidates in which he had applied. Counsel for the petitioners also argued that in view of the provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1961, after completion of petitioners apprenticeship with the respondent Board, their merit could not have been adjudged by written examination/interview and viva-voce vis-a-vis the other candidates for recruitment. This argument was also rejected in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad Apprentice Welfare Association and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2000 6 JT 227 where the earlier view of the Supreme Court in U.P. State of Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shiskhukhs Berozgar Sangh and others, 1995 2 JT 26 had also come up for consideration. In the aforesaid judgment, it was held that other things being equal, a trainee apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits and secondly, that such apprentices will have to rub their shoulders by way of written examination and interview, if any, alongwith other direct recruits. On the basis of the directions issued, the respondent-Board supplied the list of marks obtained by the selected candidates alongwith the marks obtained by the petitioners, by letter dated 30.3.2001 (Annexure RA/2). From the list, the review-petitioner came to know that one Harvinder Singh son of Swinder Singh shown at Sr. No. 106 of the list, had obtained 158 marks and had been appointed. The review petitioner having done apprentice training with the respondent-Board was entitled to be given preference, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The review-petitioner also came to know that among the candidates who have done one year apprenticeship in the respondent- Board, secured 158 marks, the review petitioner stands at Sr. No. 1. He, therefore, requested the authorities for appointment on the post of Junior Engineer. Since the respondents did not accept the request of the review- petitioner, he filed CWP No. 5313 of 2001, seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint him on the post of Junior Engineer. The aforesaid writ petition came up for hearing before this Court. We may notice at this stage, that although the review-petitioner was seeking preference over Harvinder Singh, he was not initially impleaded as a party. In fact, he was not even impleaded as a party in CWP No. 13597 of 1999. When CWP No. 5313 of 2001 came up for hearing before the Division Bench on 27.12.2002, the Bench was of the opinion that since the detailed marks were available before the earlier Bench, the matter would have been considered by the earlier Bench. Mr. Gopal Mahajan, learned counsel for the review-petitioner, however, submitted that this aspect of the matter was not dealt with by the earlier Bench. In such circumstances, the Division Bench observed that review of the order dated 14.3.2000 would be a more appropriate remedy. Mr. Mahajan, therefore, made a prayer to withdraw the aforesaid writ petition in order to avail the remedy of review of the order dated 14.3.2001 passed in CWP No. 13897 of 1999. On the basis of the aforesaid observations, made by the Bench, the review-petitioner filed the present review petition on 10.10.2002. Since by that time, R.S. Mongia, J. was no longer a judge of this Court, the matter was placed for hearing before K.C. Gupta, J. After hearing the learned counsel for the review-petitioner, K.C. Gupta, J. issued notice of motion to respondent Nso. 1 and 2 for 25.2.2003. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned.
(2.) Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed reply to the review petition on 25.4.2003. The respondents took a preliminary objection that the review petition is liable to be dismissed as Harvinder Singh son of Swinder Singh had not been impleaded as a respondent. The review-petitioner, therefore, filed CM No. 10521 of 2003 with a prayer to implead Harvinder Singh as respondent No. 8. Harvinder Singh filed reply to the aforesaid application and stated that he had not been impleaded as a party-respondent in the original writ petition. The review-petitioner who was petitioner No. 11 in CWP No. 13597 of 1999 cannot now be permitted to challenge his appointment in the review petition. It was further pointed out that Harvinder Singh had been appointed as Junior Engineer pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in CWP No. 17156 of 1999 (Kulvinder Singh v. PSEB). However, the application filed by the review- petitioner for impleading respondent No. 8 was allowed by K.C. Gupta, J. by order dated 8.5.2003. Subsequently, K.C. Gupta, J. retired from service on 2.2.2004. Thereafter, the matter has been placed for hearing before this Bench.
(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the paper-book.;