INTHE HON'BLE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, AT BILASPUR REVIEW PETITION No. /2010 SCT-.SIS ilswiglBSI PETITIONER l^-s N-T' ^ ^..••••l"^n••:y\:V1^' ^s-" - Ate"1 '".-r. .V-(t ^'^ s V"\A^ y^'*--" ,....0"' ^.*-" RESPONDENTS VERSUS MANOJ KUMAR HARKANDE S/o Shri. Sudhakar Narayan, Aged about 34 Years, Unemployed, Residing at: Near UCO. Bank, Ramnagar, BMY-CHARODA District: Durg (CG) Union oflndia, Through : The GeneralManager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur Zone, G.M.Office, PO : BILASPUR - 495001 (CG) The Dy. ChiefPersonnel Officer, Head Quarter's Office, Personnel Department, South East Central Railway, BILASPUR - 495001 (CG) The Divisional Railway Manager, (Personnel) S.E.C.Railway, Raipur Division, RAIPUR- 492001 (CG) REVIEW PETITION FOR REVIEWEVG THE ORAL ORDER DATED 11.12.2009 PASSED IN W.P. (S) 3120 / 2009. The humble Petitioners most respectfully beg to submit as under :- ^0. ^>^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Satish K. Aamhotri and Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant KymaLhflishra Review Petition No.2 of 2010 Petitioner Manoj Kumar Harkande versus Respondents Union of India and others Review Pefition for Reviewina theOral OrdejLdaLed 11-12-2009 passed in Writ Petition (S.) No.3120/2009 (Bv Circulation in Chamber} ORDER (Passedon l3-03-2010) Per Prashant Kumar Mishra. J.: The matter is taken-up for consideration in the chamber under the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 90 of Chapter VI of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007. 2. The present is a review petition for reviewing this Court's order dated 11-12-2009 passed in Writ Petition (S.) No.3120/2009. The said order is as under: "In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for cancellation of the entire recruitment process carried out by employment notification dated 11-8-2008 (Annexure P-1) and by subsequent notification dated 1-1-2009 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner has also prayed for setting aside the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (henceforth 'the Tribunal') on 6-5-2009 (Annexure P-6) in O.A. No.45/2009 and the letter dated 2-2-2009 (Annexure P-5) issued by the respondents and to direct the '\ •^-— respondents to conduct fresh selection/written test after making necessary age relaxation in the advertisement dated 11-8-2008 (Annexure P-1). 2. Before the Tribunal the petitioner had claimed the similar relief and had challenged the validity of the notification dated 11-8-2008 (Annexure P-1) vide which applications were invited from eligible and meritorious Scout and Guides candidates for filling up 2 vacancies in Group-C category in pay-scale Rs.3050-4900 and 6 vacancies in Group-D category in pay-scale Rs.2550- 3540 against Scout and Guides quota over SEC Railway. The basic contention raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal was that though he is eligible for Groups-C and D categories posts as he fulfills the prescribed educational qualification yet since he is over- aged his application has not been considered for the posts. The Tribunal has mentioned in paragraph 2 of the order dated 6-5-2009 (Annexure P-6) that "it is admitted that he is not within the age limit prescribed vide aforesaid notification". 3. The Tribunal dismissed the original application by order dated 6-5-2009 (Annexure P-6) and has granted liberty to the respondents to carry out the selection process in terms of rules and law. 4. In the return filed before this Court, the respondents have stated that the recruitment process for filling of the posts in Group-D category against Scout and Guides quota for the year 2008-09 for Raipur Division is complete and the competent authority has granted approval for provisional empanelment of Mr. Digamberlal and Mr. A. Nageshwar Rao. 5. The petitioner has not amended the writ petition to array the above named two persons in the writ petition, 'therefore, in view of the completion of the selection ',! lltii IE' ;• r"ii) 3- process, the instant writ petition has become infructuous and it is accordingly dismissed as infructuous." ^ 3. The contention of the petitioner in this review petition is that merely because the recruitment process is complete, the writ petition does not become infructuous. Accordi.ng to the petitioner, the recruitment process has been completed during pendency of the writ petition, which came to the notice of the petitioner after the counter affidavit of the respondents was filed. He has further submitted in the review petition that he had filed rejoinder on 10-12-2009 but the petition was heard on the same day. 4. Be that as it may, on the petitioner's own showing, he had filed the rejoinder on 10-12-2009 but had not impleaded the selected candidates. In K.H.Siraj vs. High Court of Kerala and others, (2006) 6 SCC 395, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when the petitioners are challenging the select-list and if the petition is allowed, it would result in total re-arrangement of select-list, therefore, all candidates of select-list should have been impleaded as parties to the writ petition. The petitioner, in the present writ petition, has not impleaded the selected candidates, thus, in vie\w of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the review petition is not maintainable. Even otherwise, after completion of the recruitment process, the recruitment cannot be challenged by a person who himself was not qualified to participate in the selection process. Law, in this regard, has also been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 68 and 71 of the decision in K.H.Siraj vs. High Court of Kerala and 'others (supra). 5. It is settled law that Writ Court does not decide academic issues. When the recruitment process is complete, challenge to the notification became academic. 6. It is trite law that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (See S.R.Chavan vs. Cement Corporation oflndia and others, (2008) 1 CGLJ 519 and Kanhaiya Lal Mehar vs. High Court of Chhattisgarh, (2007) 2 CGLJ 326) It is settled by several judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smf. Meera Bhanjan vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumar Choudhary, AIR 1995 SC 455, Lily Thomas, etc. vs. Union oflndia and others, AIR 2000 SC 1650, Ajit Kumar Rath vs. Ste(e of Or/ssa and others, AIR 2000 SC 85, Governmentof T.N. and others vs. M. Ananchu Asari and others, (2005) 2 SCC 332 that in the guise of review petition, the petitioner cannot be permitted to argue the petition afresh again. 7. This Court does not find any error apparent on the face of the record nor the petitioner has been able to demonstrate any other ground for reviewing this Court's order dated 11-12-2009. The review petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Jiidge Sd./- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge