IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Review No. 51/2009 Date of decision: 9. 10. 2009 Dr. Ashu Bhardwaj …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ……Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 . For the petitioner: Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. For the respondent : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. R.M. Bisht, Dy. Advocate General,for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Deepak Gupta, J (Oral) By means of this Review petition, the petitioner seeks to recall the judgment, passed by this court on 31st July, 2009 in C.W.P-T No. 2199 of 2008. Three grounds have been raised before us. Firstly that as far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, our 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - observation that he had not joined the service as Associate Professor by the time, the private respondents had been promoted, is incorrect. According to Mr. Dalip Sharma, Advocate, the notification whereby petitioner No. 2 was offered appointment, was issued on 6.1.2001. We are not concerned with the date on which he was offered the appointment but the date on which he actually joined and the fact is that even as per the averment made in para 6.1.4 of the Original Petition, petitioner No. 2 on affidavit has stated that he joined the said post on 21.4.2001, i.e. after the private respondents had joined. The second ground raised is that, we on page 11 of the judgment have stated that the private respondents were working as Dental Surgeons for more than a decade in the Dental Wing of the I.G.M.C. Shimla, as stated above. It may be correct that the private respondents had not been promoted in the Dental Wing of the I.G.M.C. Shimla for a decade. However, this has no bearing on the merits of the case because these observations have to be - 3 - read with the observations made in para 9 of the judgment wherein we have clearly held that the private respondents had put in long years of service and at the inception of the Dental College since no other qualified persons were available, they were appointed to meet the exigencies of service. This does not in any way affect the merit of the judgment. The last point raised is that petitioner No. 1 has challenged the appointment of private respondents as Associate Professors. We had never held that petitioner No. 1 had not challenged their appointment. What we have held is that when petitioner No. 1 as well as the private respondents were promoted as Associate Professors on 16.2.1999, petitioner No. 1 was shown at the bottom of the list. She thereafter made a representation on 26.3.1999 wherein her only request was that she be shown senior to the private respondents and in the said representation, she had not challenged the promotion of the private respondents as Associate Professors. Since in her representation, she had not challenged the - 4 - promotion, we held that she was not entitled to challenge the appointment/ promotion of the private respondents as Associate Professors in the writ petition filed after many years. In view of the above discussion, we see no merit in the Review petition which is accordingly dismissed. (Deepak Gupta),J. October 9, 2009 (Surinder Singh),J (cm)