IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Civil Review No. 43 of 2011 Date of decision: 31.08.2011 ________________________________________________________________ H.R.T.C. .....Petitioner. Versus Amar Nath & others. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). Heard. By filing the present review petition the petitioner is seeking review of judgment dated 24.11.2010, passed by this Court in CWP(T) No. 5508 of 2008, Amar Nath vs. Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation & others, mainly on the grounds that firstly seven direct recruits, inducted in August, 1995, were not joined as parties to the writ petition by respondent No. 1-writ petitioner and secondly, one Shri Chaman Lal, who belongs to scheduled caste category, had already been promoted against an un-reserved category on 02.03.1991 against Roster Point No. 20 and as such the reserved category at Roster Point No. 22 claimed by respondent No. 1-writ petitioner had already been filled up by the said Shri Chaman Lal qua whom it was specifically made clear in the memorandum submitted to the Departmental Promotion 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... Committee that the subsequent vacancy against Roster Point No. 22 would be deemed to be un-reserved. 2. The prayer for review is opposed by the respondent- writ petitioner by submitting that if not covered under any of the grounds mentioned in Rule 1 of Order 47 CPC. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 4. The review is sought by the petitioner-corporation, which was duly represented at the time of passing of the aforesaid judgment dated 24.11.2010. The above facts canvassed on its behalf for seeking review of the judgment were well within its knowledge and could have been brought to the notice of the Court at the time of hearing, had due diligence been exercised. Furthermore, the judgment does not suffer from any mistake or error apparent on the face of record and I also do not see any sufficient reason to review the judgment. 5. Admittedly, the aforesaid seven persons had joined the service as direct recruits in August, 1995. The direction to the petitioner-Corporation is for holding review DPC within three months from the date of judgment to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Regional Manager against reservation Roster Point No. 22 on regular basis w.e.f. 19.11.1993 in accordance with law. In such situation, even in case the respondent No. 1-writ petitioner is finally promoted as Regional Manager w.e.f. 19.11.1993, the aforesaid seven persons, who had ...3... joined the service only in August, 1995, as direct recruits, were not necessary parties to the writ petition. Even otherwise, if consequent upon consideration of the case of the petitioner they feel that their interests have been affected, they shall have fresh cause of action and can very well agitate their grievance. Still further, in case a reserved category candidate is granted accelerated promotion against a roster point meant for general category, it cannot legally amount de-reservation of the later roster point. 5. Indisputably, the aforesaid judgment dated 24.11.2010 is appealable. 6. In view of the above, the review petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner-Corporation to seek its remedy, if any, by way of appeal in accordance with law, if so advised, in which event the bar of limitation would not come in its way, as it has been pursuing the claim in the present review petition. 7. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 31st August, 2011 (virender)