M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) THE instant review petition has been filed by above named five petitioners for review and/or recall of that part of judgment and order dated 1.4.2002 passed by a Bench of this Court in Civil Review No. 10/2002 whereby although this Court in the facts and circumstances of the case held that the review application No. 10/2002 is not maintainable because no ground warranting the review of the judgment and order dated 26,2.2002 passed in WPS No. 6006/2001 is made out, the Curt thereafter to passed a detailed and specific direction giving liberty to the petitioners therein i.e: contesting respondents -1st set lo make representation to the Central Government seeking redressal of their new grievances. For better appreciation order dated 1.4.2002 sought to be reviewed is quoted herein below : "In this review application these five petitioners have sought a review of our Judgment passed on 26.2.2002 in WP (S) No. 6006 of 2001. That writ petition had arisen from out of an Order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. These writ petitioners had approached 'the Tribunal challenging the Notification dated 11.6.2001, issued by the Central Govt. in which the allocations of the writ petitioners and respondent Nos. 5 to 12 to Bihar and Jharkhand cadres of the Indian Forest Service (IFS) were altered. The petitioners were returned to Bihar Cadre of IFS (after originally being allocated Jharkhand Cadre), whereas respondents Nos. 5 to 12 were allocated Jharkhand Cadre (after originally being retained in Bihar Cadre). While dismissing the writ application, we had taken note of the Roster system as had been formulated and adopted by U.C. Agarwal Committee, based on the guidelines issued by the Central Government. Our entire judgment was based practically on a single point and that was the earlier wrong inclusion of S.B. Gayakwad in the Open General Category, whereas he actually belonged to SC/ST Category and later on by detection of this mistake, his exclusion and the consequential cliange in the placement positions of the officers in the Roster Blocks of 4 officers each. In other words, what we had observed was that because every officer whose name figured at Sl. No. 3 in every such 4 - officers Roster Block was to be retained in Bihar Cadre, because of the exclusion of S.B, Gayakwad, the placements in the Roster Block got altered, thus shifting the position of the petitioners to Sl. No. 3 in every such Roster Block. In this Review Application, the petitioners have drawn out attention to the affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Particular reference is invited to the averments contained in para '18 ' of that affidavit. Our attention has also been drawn to the guidelines issued on the subject. It is contended that after allocating nine officers in Direct Recruit insider Quota (five belonging to the General Category and four to the Reserved Categories) there remained a "gap" of 23 in DR insiders Quota of Jharkhand and that this "gap" had to be filled up from out of the officers willing to serve in Jharkhand drawn from all categories, namely, insiders Bihar and Outsiders Bihar, who had been left behind tin Bihar after the initial round of allocation. As per the aforesaid affidavit of the Central Government there were exactly 23 such officers, who had opted for Jharkhand Cadre and to fill up the aforesaid "gap" all such 23 optees were allocated Jharkhand Cadre. The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners also had a right to exercise their option. They say that they actually exercised such an option. The right to exercise the option being available, the petitioners options were not considered. Tills according to the petitioners is a new ground which they discovered after going through the aforesaid affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Additionally, it is contended that the aforesaid guidelines were also not available to the petitioner and that these were supplied to them only on 24.2.2002. Annexure - 'l 1 ' to the Review Application (at page 135) is the list of 23 officers styled as "DR insider (residual Bihar} left in Bihar, who were willing to serve in Jharkhand and were considered for filling the deficit/gap in insider Jharkhand ' quota." The aforesaid contentions of the petitioners may be right these may not be correct. But the fact remains that these contentions, perhaps. Indicate that a new cause of action might have accrued in favour of the petitioners. Whether such a new cause of action has actually accrued to them or not is not for us to comment upon. We are making these observations only to hold that the remedy of the petitioners is not by invoking our review Jurisdiction. In the facts and circumstances, the Review Application is held not maintainable because no ground warranting the review of our Judgment dated 26.2,2002 is made out. In our considered view, the remedy of the petitioners may lie elsewhere. It may be by way of seeking redressal of grievance through alternative means. Even though, therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this Review Application, we would have no hesitation in issuing an appropriate direction to meet the ends of justice. The petitioners are at liberty to make a fresh representation to the Central Government seeking redressal of grievances on the aforesaid lines and on the basis as indicated hereinabove. If they file such a representation before the Central Government within two weeks from today, we direct the Central Government to consider the same on its merits and dispose it of in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of its receipt, by passing a speaking order. If the petitioners feel aggrieved in any manner by the aforesaid order that the Central Government may pass on the petitioners ' aforesaid representation, they shall be at liberty to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal against such an order. To that extent their fresh petition before the Tribunal may not be hit by res Judicata or the principles of constructive res judicata. However, in any such fresh petition before the Tribunal, Respondents No. 5 to 12 herein cannot be disturbed because any fresh or further changes to the allocation of these respondents in Jharkhand cadre shall definitely be hit by res judicata. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till the Central Government disposes of the representation of the petitioners, the petitioners be accorded the interim protection of their continuing in Jharkhand Cadre on the strength of the notification issued on 14.11.2000. This contention is supported by the factual submission that the number of officers in Jharkhand finally posted in IFS Cadre is still short of the actual allocation. Even though we do not wish to pass any order on such prayer of the petitioners, we give liberty to the petitioners to make a representation for the aforesaid purpose to the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand. If such a representation is made within one week from today, we direct that the Chief Secretary may consider the same on its merits and take a decision there upon. While taking such a decision, the Chief Secretary may be guided. If he thinks it proper by the fact as to whether there is any short -fall in the number of officers who actually and physically stand posted in Jharkhand vis -a -vis the allocated cader strength and as to whether because of such short - fall, the interests of the Government are suffering. While determining such a short - fall (in any), it shall however be kept in mind that the respondents Nos. 5 to 12 herein have to be accommodated in Jharkhand Cadre in any case. If after keeping in mind that aspect of the matter, the Chief Secretary finds that there is still a short -fall and sliort -fall is more than five, he may consider the desirability of retaining the petitioners in Jharkhand Cadre till the disposal of their representation by the Central Government. With the aforesaid observation/directions, the Review Application is disposed of. No order as to costs."
(2.) PETITIONERS ' case is that they are the direct recruit "Insider" Officers of the erstwhile Bihar cadre of the Indian Forest Service and have been serving in the existing State of Bihar till the bifurcation of the State, All these petitioners had been allotted their home cadre of the existing Bihar on merit, on account of their high ranks in the merit list of the respective years in which they competed in the examinations for selection to the Indian Forest Service conducted by the Union Public Service Commission. After coming into force of Bihar Reorganisation Act 2000. and the resultant bifurcation of the cadre of the Indian Forest Service of the erstwhile Bihar between the two successor States, these petitioners were allocated Jharkhand cadre as per the Notification 16016/22/2000 -IFS -11, dated 14.11.2000 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest Govt. of India, in exercise of power conferred by Section 71 (4) of the Bihar Reorganisation Act. 2000 regard with Rule 5 of the Indian Forest Service (Cadre) Rules. 1966. Consequent to the allocation of cadre off the Indian Forest Service between the two successor States of Bihar and Jharkhand vide notification dated 14.11.2000, the contesting respondents -1st set, who were petitioners in the Civil Review Petition No. 10/2002 were allocated Jharkhand Cadre. Al] these contesting respondents were consequently posted in the territories now falling in the State of Jharkhand and they started their duties as members of the Jharkhand cadre of India Forest Service. It is significant to Indicate here that all these contesting respondents -1st set were Direct Recruit "Outsiders" to the erstwhile Bihar Cadre of the Indian Forest Service. However, the Government of India. Ministry of Environment and Forests issued a fresh notification dated 11.6.2001 purportedly on representation made by six officers of the IFS cadre allocated to residual Bihar Cadre, bringing into notice an anomaly which had crept In the preparation of roaster for allocation of General Category Direct Recruit "Outsider" cadre by wrongly including one officer, i.e. S.B. Gayakwad of 1984 Batch who actually belongs to SC/ST category of Direct Recruit Outsiders , To rectify the aforesaid anomaly the roster of Direct Recruit "Outsider General" as well as "Outsider SC/ST" were amended by the. Govt. of India by excluding the name of Shri S.B. Gayakwad from the roster of "Outsider General" and including it in the "Outsider SC/ST ' roster. As a result of this amendment in roster, eight officers who are Proforma Respondents herein and were private respondents in Civil Review No. 10/2002 and the Original Writ No. 6006/2001 as also the Original Application No. 95/2001. and who had earlier been allocated to the residual Bihar Cadre, were now allocated to Jharkhand cadre while nine officers earlier allocated to Jharkhand cadre were now allocated to the residual Bihar cadre. The contesting respondents 1st set challenged the said notification dated 11.6.2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna on various grounds. The Union of India. State of Bihar, State of Jharkhand and the private respondents who are respondent Nos. 10 to 17 herein were made parties. The Central Administrative Tribunal after hearing the parties dismissed the original application No. 95/2001 in terms of order dated 10.12.2001 holding that there was no illegality or irregularity in issuance of impugned notification dated 11.6.2001. The contesting respondents 1st set being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the Tribunal filed writ petition being WPS No. 6006/2001 before this Court. A Division Bench of tills Court after hearing the parties dismissed the writ petition in terms of judgment dated 26.2.2002 affirming the judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The respondents 1st set then filed review petition being Civil Review No. 10/2002 for review of the judgment passed in WPS No. 6006/2001. The said review petition was heard and dismissed as not maintainable in terms of order dated 1.4.2002 but with fresh direction. The said order dated 1,4.2002 so far it relates to fresh direction is the subject matter of this review/recall application.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the review petitioners. Firstly submitted that once the main relief sought by way of review petition In Civil Review No. 10/02 was held not maintainable as no grounds for warranting a review of the original order passed in the writ petition was made out then the Court ought not to have proceeded to pass categorical and specific direction in favour of those petitioners on the totally new facts, de hors their original plea in the original writ petition. Learned counsel submitted that those petitioners were the necessary and proper parties in the said Civil Review No. 10/02 and the directions given in the review petition prejudicially affected them and they become seriously aggrieved by the said direction. Learned counsel also submitted that the writ petitioners had raised totally new cause at the stage of review which they are precluded from raising within the limited scope of review jurisdiction and if such plea is raised for the first time then the persons affected had to be given opportunity of hearing by the Court. Learned counsel put reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court In the case of State of Orissa V/s. Madan Gopal Rungta, AIR (39) 1952 SC 12 and also in the case of Union of India and others V/s. Vidya Bagaria, (2004) 5 SCC 577.;