IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL MCC No. 275 of 2010 (Review Application) In Writ Petition (S/B) No. 244 of 2009 Dr. Arti Dixit ……… Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others .………. Respondents. Mr. Naresh Pant and Ms. Menka Tripathi, Advocates for the non-applicant/petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Advocate for the applicant/respondent Nos. 1 and 4. Date of Judgment: 29-04-2010 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral) The instant review application has been filed, requiring us to review the order passed by us on 11.02.2010, finally disposing of Writ Petition (S/B) No. 244 of 2009. 2. The solitary ground raised by the applicant/respondent Nos. 1 and 4 in the instant review petition is based on the averments contained in paragraph 7 of the application. Paragraph 7 of the review application is being extracted hereunder: - “7. In anticipation of superannuation of Dr. Daljeet Kaur on 18.08.2007, the Management Committee of the college vide letter dated 10.08.2007 appointed the petitioner, who was not a teacher of the D.W.T. (P.G.) College and was working somewhere else, as officiating principal to replace Dr. Daljeet Kaur on 18.08.2007. Thus, the appointment of the petitioner as officiating principal was illegal being not in conformity of the clause 13.20 of the statutes of the university as she was not a teacher in the same college and was working somewhere else. The copies of the appointment letter dated 10.08.2007 and joining report dated 18.08.2007 of the petitioner are annexed as Annexure Nos. 4 and 5 respectively to the writ petition.” 3. The prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant/respondent Nos. 1 and 4 is not acceptable in law, on account of the fact, that the factual position depicted in paragraph 7 was not canvassed at the hands of the respondents at the time of hearing on 11.02.2010. Secondly, we are satisfied, that the factual position depicted 2 in paragraph 7 of the instant application does not, in any way, interfere with our order dated 11.02.2010. By our aforesaid order we have recorded the conclusion, that the petitioner was entitled to salary of the post of Principal with effect from the date she commenced to officiate as such. More so, because she was subsequently selected on the basis of a regular process of selection and appointed against the post of Principal. Thirdly, the submission advanced at the hands of the applicant/respondent Nos. 1 and 4 is per se perverse. The submission raised seems to suggest, that in case the officiating appointment as Principal had been made from the senior-most lecturer within the employment of the college then payment of salary would be legitimate and proper. The perversity being, that a candidate who was appointed on officiating basis, has subsequently been selected in a regular process of selection on merit, her case certainly is better than a Principal appointed on officiating basis from within the college, who may not eventually have been selected. Fourthly, the basis for filing the instant review application is certainly beyond the purview of the parameters laid down under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. In view of the above, we are satisfied, that the instant review application is liable to be dismissed with costs. The instant review application is, accordingly, dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/- . The aforesaid costs shall be deposited by the applicant/respondent Nos. 1 and 4 with the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority within one month from today, and the receipts thereof shall be placed on the record of this case within one month from today. In case no such receipt is placed on the record of this case within the time specified above, the Registry shall re-list this case for motion hearing for the recovery of the costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 29.04.2010 29.04.2010 Amit