Shri Dharam Raj v. Shri Raj Kumar And ORS.

10.03.2025 Item No.1 Ct. No.26 CHC Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Port Blair Appellate Side From Principal Bench RVW/1/2023 in MAT/39/2012 With MAT/36/2012 in WPA/23/2012 IA NO: CAN/1/2023 Shri Dharam Raj Vs.

Shri Raj Kumar & Ors.

Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya, Sr. Advocate Mr. Phatick Das, Advocate Mr. Anindya Bose, Advocate ...for the review applicant/appellant Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate Ms. Sonia Das, Advocate ...for the respondent nos.2 to 6

1. An application for condonation of delay along with review petition are both taken analogously for consideration.

2. Review applicant seeks review of judgment and order dated November 29, 2012 passed in MAT 36 of 2012 and MAT 39 of 2012.

3. There was review petition being RVW 4 of 2012 filed in respect of judgment and order dated November 29, 2012 passed in MAT 39 of 2012 and MAT 36 of 2012. Such review petition being RVW 4 of 2012 was dismissed by an order dated June 28, 2013. The

review applicant did not apply for review therein. A Special Leave Petition was filed by the review applicant before us directed against the order dated June 28, 2013 passed in RVW 4 of 2012. Such Special Leave Petition was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to approach the High Court by moving an appropriate application, by an order dated September 6, 2013.

4. Review applicant, approached the High Court by way of RVW 6 of 2013 seeking review of the judgment and order dated November 29, 2012 passed in MAT 39 of 2012 and MAT 36 of 2012.

5. The review application of the review applicant being RVW 6 of 2013 was dismissed by an order dated September 9, 2016. The typographical error in the order dated September 9, 2016 was corrected by order dated February 17, 2017.

6. Review applicant approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition directed against the judgment and order dated September 9, 2016 passed in RVW 6 of 2013. Such Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on February 4, 2019 after holding that, there was no reason to interfere with the order under review.

7. Thereafter, the present review petition was again filed by the review applicant seeking review of the judgment and order dated November 29, 2012.

8. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the review applicant submits that, there are new materials which came to the notice of his client permitting a review of the judgment and order dated November 29, 2012 passed in MAT 39 of 2012 and MAT 36 of 2012.

9. In support of such contention he draws the attention of the Court to the notification dated December 5, issued by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration Secretariat. He submits that, the education qualification prescribed therein stands satisfied by the review applicant. He points out that, on a writ petition of quo-warranto filed by a person without any cause of action, the appointment of the review applicant was set aside.

10. Andaman and Nicobar Island Administration is represented.

11. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Administration submits that, there is an issue of delay of about 11 years. He submits that, no new material is brought on record. The incident claimed as a new material is an incident occurring in 1994 itself. He points out that, the issue sought to be raised is barred by principles of res judicata.

12. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the review applicant relies upon Legal Metrology (General) Rules 2011 to contend that, his client possesses requisite qualification to be appointed to the post. He submits that, the delay stands explained by onset of COVID and mother of the review applicant being ill for a substantial period of time.

13. Given the chequered history of the matter as noted above, we propose to decide the merits of the review application itself.

14. Review applicant was initially appointed to the post of Inspector (Weights & Measures). His appointment was assailed by way of a writ petition being WP No.023 of 2012 which allowed by the judgment and order dated July 17, 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge. Appointment of the review applicant was set aside on the ground inter alia that, the review applicant did not possess the requisite qualification to be appointed to the post of Inspector (Weights & Measures).

15. Thereafter, as noted above, appeal was disposed of by the judgment and order dated November 29, 2012 passed in MAT 39 of 2012 and MAT 36 of 2012 upholding the judgment dated July 17, 2012 passed in WP No. 023 of 2012, by which the review application was dismissed from service. Special Leave Petition preferred against the judgment and order

dated November 29, 2012 was dismissed. Review application directed against the judgment and order dated November 29, 2012 filed at the instance of the review applicant was dismissed. A Special Leave Petition directed against the dismissal of the review application was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

16. The issue as to whether, the review applicant possesses requisite qualification to be appointed to the post of Inspector (Weights & Measures) fell for consideration from the stage of the writ petition right up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and at the interregnum before Division Bench, thereafter a review before Division Bench and a re-review before the Division Bench. The same issue is now sought to be resurrected by the review applicant.

17. We are of the view that, the issue stands decided by the Court as noted above. We are not minded to allow the review applicant to reopen such issue.

18. RVW 1/2023 along with connected application are dismissed without any order as to costs.

(Debangsu Basak, J.) (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)