SHARMA, J. - (1.) BY this review petition the petitioner seeks to recall the order dated July 18, 2002. The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, (a) suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order, and (b) permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. Bearing these guidelines in mind we proceed to decide the instant petition.
(2.) THE appeal filed by respondent employee (for short `employee') seeking selection scale at par with the Government employees was allowed by the Rajasthan Non Government Educational Institutions Tribunal vide order dated April 25, 2001. THE said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing writ petition No. 2575/2001. THE writ petition came to be dismissed vide order dated April 15, 2002 with the following observations:- " Lastly it is argued that the Tribunal has committed an error in granting relief to some of the teachers of educational institutions though have approached the court after much delay and has placed reliance on the decisions in Mohammad Kavi Mohamad Amin vs. Fatmabai Ibrahim (1997) 6 SCC 71, Ram Chand & Others vs. Union of India & Others (1994) 1 SCC 44, and State of Gujarat V. Patel Raghav Natha & Others AIR 1969 SC 1297, wherein has been held that where there is no time limit prescribed for exercise of the powers under statute it has to be exercised within a reasonable time. Where no time limit is provided it does mean that it can be exercised within a reasonable time. S. 21 of the Act of 1989 provides for application to the Tribunal for redressal of grievance, where there is any dispute between the management or a recognised institution and any of its employees, with respect to condition of service, in a prescribed manner. Sec. 21 does not provide for any time limit for reference of dispute to the Tribunal. However, there cannot be any manner of doubt that the application has to be moved by an employee who is aggrieved by any act of the employer relating to service conditions within a reasonable time. What shall be the reasonable time has to be ascertained by the courts in the given facts and circumstances of a case. Unless and until the facts and circumstances are alleged by the party who has raised the question of limitation, that question cannot be gone into because the reasonableness of time will depend upon the factual matrix of each and every case. Simply because the application has been moved after a long delay that itself cannot be a ground for refusal, unless it is established that the period taken by the party before approaching the court was unreasonable or without any just cause. THE question which has been raised before this Court of limitation has neither been agitated nor has been dealt with in the order of the Tribunal. It is not possible for this Court to adjudicate upon this question in the absence of necessary pleadings and thus the plea raised of limitation cannot be entertained at this stage. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in the petitions and they are dismissed. No order as to costs. " Learned Single Judge regarding the issue of selection scale made following observations in para 10 of the judgment:- " In view of the aforesaid, In my opinion by virtue of Sec. 20 of the Act of 1989 and R. 34 of the Rules of 1993, respondent teachers of NGEIs shall be entitled for the selection scale as provided under the circulars issued by the Government on 23. 1. 1985 and 25. 1. 1992. " The order of the learned Single Judge was challenged by filing Special Appeal No. 441/2002, which came to be dismissed vide order dated July 18, 2002 as under:- " Mr. D. P. Sharma, learned counsel for respondents submits that these two appeals are fully covered by the decision dated 28. 5. 2002 of the Full Bench rendered at the principal seat of this High Court at Jodhpur in a common judgment whereby 24 writ petitions i. e. DB Civil Writ Petition No. 2565/1999 & others were dismissed. Accordingly, these two appeals are also dismissed in terms of the full Bench judgment dated 28. 5. 2002, as referred to hereinabove. No order as to the cost. " Hence the instant review petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated July 18, 2002 on the ground that the impugned order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition, which came to be dismissed with the following order on December 2, 2002:- " Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw these special leave petitions with a view to approach the High Court for appropriate relief on the ground that there is a factual error in the impugned order. The permission is granted and the special leave petitions are dismissed as withdrawn. " The petitioner contended that the institutions where the employees was working was not getting any aid, therefore the ratio of Full Bench decision is not applicable in the present case. This fact was mentioned in special appeal that the institution was not getting any aid w. e. f. April 1, 1998. Learned counsel further contended that even if the decision of Full Bench is to be applied in the instant case the same cannot be applied from April 1, 1998. Learned counsel placing reliance on the judgment in case of TMA Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481, contended that unaided institutions cannot be compelled to obey the circulars like 25. 1. 92 as far as grant in aid and payment of selection scales are concerned. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and scanned the material on record.
(3.) IT is not disputed that the petitioner institution was not getting grant in aid w. e. f April 1, 1998 therefore the petitioner being unaided institution cannot be compelled after April 1, 1998 to obey the circulars issued by the Government but the total salary drawn and paid to the employee on or after April 1, 1998 cannot be reduced by the institution on the ground that the Government had suspended the aid. Having closely scanned the order under challenge, we find that it doesnot suffer from any illegality which called for correction by exercising of review jurisdiction. For these reasons, we find no merit in the instant petition and the same stands dismissed. No costs. .;