Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 708 (GAU)

State of Nagaland v. B. Carolyn Imchen

2024-05-17

BUDI HABUNG, PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

body2024
JUDGMENT : BUDI HABUNG, J. 1. Heard Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Additional AG, Nagaland for the appellants and Mr. Tongpok Pongener, learned counsel for the sole respondent. 2. This inter court appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)/61/2020 and the order dated 31.10.2023 passed in Review Petition no. 03/2023. By the said impugned judgment and order dated 28.06.2022, the learned Single Judge directed for regularization of the Ad-hoc service of the writ petitioner/respondent herein in terms of the Office Memorandum No. AR-5/ASSO/98 dated 18.02.2004. And by an order dated 31.10.2023, the Review Petition No. 03/2023 filed against the said judgment and order dated 28.06.2022 has been dismissed. 3. The fact leading to the filling of the present appeal in brief is that the respondent was appointed as Ad-hoc Teacher under the establishment of Deputy Inspector of School, Mokokchung vide order dated 29.04.1998. And since then, her service on Ad-hoc basis has been extended from time to time. 4. By the Office Memorandum No. AR-5/ASSO/98 dated 18.02.2004 (for short OM hereinafter), the Government of Nagaland framed criteria for regularization of contract/adhoc appointments. As per category-1(b) of the said OM, the employees having 5-10 years of service can be considered for regularization provided that there is a sanctioned post and the employee fulfils the eligibility criteria for the post including; requisite educational qualification and further the performance of the employee is satisfactory. In terms of the said provision of OM, the Directorate of School Education published a list of 339 Ad-hoc/contract Government Teachers who had completed 5-10 years of services as on 16.01.2004 to appear for eligibility test. In the said list, the name of the Respondent has been shown at serial No. 260 and the Respondent was informed to appear for the test on 13.07.2005. The contract service of the respondent was not regularised. 5. Being aggrieved, the respondent/writ petitioner filed WP(C)/61/2020 before this Court. The contention of the respondent/writ petitioner in writ petition was that although she had appeared for the test on the given date; but her service has not been regularized, while all the candidates who were called for the same test were either regularized vide order dated 04.12.2009 or vide order dated 08.06.2011. The contention of the respondent/writ petitioner in writ petition was that although she had appeared for the test on the given date; but her service has not been regularized, while all the candidates who were called for the same test were either regularized vide order dated 04.12.2009 or vide order dated 08.06.2011. Hence, prayed for direction for regularization of her service w.e.f. the date of her initial appointment i.e. 29.04.1998 as had been done in the case of other similarly situated teachers who appeared the eligibility test held in July 2005 and also in accordance with Rule 14 (4) (b) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (35 of 2009). The said Act Rule 14(4) (b) provides that the teachers appointed on Ad-hoc/temporary basis prior to the Act, shall be regularized as notified by the P&AR, Government of Nagaland from time-to-time w.e.f. the date of first appointment. 6. The respondent State filed affidavit and maintained that the appearance of the writ petitioner for the eligibility test conducted on 13.07.2005 was not available on record; and therefore, her service was not regularized. It also contended that the OM dated 18.02.2004 has already been superseded by a subsequent OM dated 23.08.2007 and 04.08.2008. Hence, the case of the petitioner/respondent herein cannot be considered under the OM dated 18.02.2004. 7. After consideration and upon hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition with a direction to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation in terms of the OM dated 18.02.2004 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the said order. It was also made clear that the said order should not be treated as a precedent in view of the fact that the case of the petitioner has been found to be left out at the relevant time, while all other similarly situated teachers have been given the benefit of regularization. 8. Being aggrieved, the appellant state filed a review petition being Review. Pet/3/2023 against the said direction on the ground that the OM dated 18.02.2004 was superseded by the OM No. AR-5/SO/98 dated 23.08.2007 which was in turn superceded by the OM dated 04.08.2008. 8. Being aggrieved, the appellant state filed a review petition being Review. Pet/3/2023 against the said direction on the ground that the OM dated 18.02.2004 was superseded by the OM No. AR-5/SO/98 dated 23.08.2007 which was in turn superceded by the OM dated 04.08.2008. And since the OM dated 04.08.2008 was declared to be unconstitutional by the Division Bench of this Court by judgment and order dated 07.02.2019 passed in WA/16(K)/2018 by upholding the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 03.08.2018, passed in WP(C)/145(K)/2017, it had become impossible for the review petitioner to consider the case of the petitioner under the OM dated 18.02.2004 as directed by the learned Single Judge. The review petitioner/appellant herein further contended that the superceded OM dated 18.08.2004 appearing in both the OM dated 23.08.2007 and 04.08.2008 should be read as 18.02.2004 as it was a typographical mistake. For the ground taken and the reason stated above, the review petitioner prays for recalling the said judgment and order dated 28.06.2022 passed in WP(C)/69(K)/2020 and for review of the same. 9. Upon due consideration of the application and on hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge by an order dated 31.10.2023, while observing that it did not find any ground to allow the review petition, has dismissed the same. 10. Being highly aggrieved with the judgment and order dated 28.06.2022 passed by the Learned Single Judge in WP(C)/61/2020 and the order dated 31.10.2023 passed in Civil Review Petition No. 03/2023 arising out of WP(C)/61/2020, the appellants preferred the present appeal. 11. Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Additional Advocate General, Nagaland for the appellant while referring to the statements made in the memo of appeal and the grounds taken therein submits that the OM dated 18.02.2004 provides for regularization of contract/adhoc appointments who have completed 5-10 years of services. The Department of School Education vide notification dated 27.06.2005 published the list of 339 ad-hoc/contract Graduate Teachers in Nagaland Post on 29.06.2005 who has completed 5-10 years of services as on 16.01.2004 to appear for eligibility test. The petitioner’s name figured at serial no. 260 to appear the test on 13.07.2005. However, the petitioner did not appear for the eligibility test conducted on 13.07.2005 therefore, her services was not regularized. 12. The learned Addl. The petitioner’s name figured at serial no. 260 to appear the test on 13.07.2005. However, the petitioner did not appear for the eligibility test conducted on 13.07.2005 therefore, her services was not regularized. 12. The learned Addl. AG submits that the policy of the Government for regularization on contract/Ad-hoc service of employees who had completed 3(three) years continuous service as per the O.M. dated 04.08.2008 and O.M. dated 11.08.2016 was put to challenge by the Action against Corruption and Unabated Taxation (ACAUT) in WP(C)/145(K)/2017. This Court by judgment and order dated 03.08.2018 has directed the State respondent not to regularize those in service on contract/Ad-hoc basis in terms of OMs dated 04.08.2008 and 11.08.2016. Against the said judgment and order, the State had filed Writ Appeal No. 16(K)/2018. However, the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court by an order dated 07.02.2019 declared the above two OMs to be unconstitutional and upheld the judgment and order dated 03.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)/145(K)/2017. However, despite the above order passed by the Division Bench, the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 28.06.2022 passed in WP(C)/61/2020 has allowed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge came to a finding that ‘.......a perusal of the judgment and order dated 03.08.2018 goes to show that this Court had directed the State respondent not to regularize the services of any person in terms of the OMs dated 11.08.2016 and 04.08.2008. Further that the memorandum dated 18.02.2004, which is relevant to the case has not been referred to in the said judgment and order.....” and directed the appellants/respondent to consider the case of the respondent/writ petitioner in terms of the OM dated 18.02.2004 within a period of 3(three) months whereas, the said OM is no more in existence. 13. It is submitted that in the meantime, the P&AR Department by its letter dated 15.09.2022 clarified that the OM dated 18.02.2004 was superseded by the OM dated 23.08.2007 and thereafter superseded by the OM dated 04.08.2008. However, due to typographical error, the OM dated 18.02.2004 was typed as 18.08.2004 in both the OMs dated 23.08.2007 and 04.08.2008 and that the same was to be read as dated 18.02.2004. 14. The learned Addl. However, due to typographical error, the OM dated 18.02.2004 was typed as 18.08.2004 in both the OMs dated 23.08.2007 and 04.08.2008 and that the same was to be read as dated 18.02.2004. 14. The learned Addl. AG further submitted that the writ petitioner approached the Court after a lapse of more than 15 years counting from the date of eligibility test conducted in the year 2005, after a lapse of more than 11 years counting from the regularization of candidates in the year 2009 and after a lapse of more than 9 years counting from the regularization of candidates in the year 2011. The writ petition was barred by delay and laches and there is no indefeasible right for the petitioner to insist or to regularize her service in terms of OM dated 18.02.2004 when the said OM is no more in existence since 23.08.2007. 15. It is submitted that the policy of the Government of Nagaland for regularization of contract/Ad-hoc appointment specifically laid down in OM dated 18.02.2004 that on submission of the list of the names of employees who have served for 5-10 years by the Department the listed employees are to appear before the Screening Committee. This makes it clear that the writ petitioner was to be tested physically on her suitability for the post. However, admittedly as stated in her affidavit in opposition on 13.07.2005, the writ petitioner/respondent herein was late for the test and she did not have the original HSLC admit card and mark-sheet, pre-university admit card and mark-sheet and graduation certificate. Further, by the time the petitioner reached for interview, her serial number had already been called and passed over. This shows that she did not participate in the interview. 16. It is submitted that on the above ground, the State respondents had raised a serious objection stating that since the writ petitioner failed to appear for the eligibility test on 13.07.2005, and as there is no record showing her presence on that day, the case of the writ petitioner cannot be considered. 16. It is submitted that on the above ground, the State respondents had raised a serious objection stating that since the writ petitioner failed to appear for the eligibility test on 13.07.2005, and as there is no record showing her presence on that day, the case of the writ petitioner cannot be considered. However, the learned Single Judge took a tangent view without providing logical and rational answer and held that “.......in the absence of specific denial by State respondents that the petitioner failed to appear for the test on the day specified, she will be entitled to be considered in terms of the memorandum dated 18.02.2004....” and thereby directed the State respondents to regularize the service of the writ petitioner, therefore, the impugned judgment and order dated 28.06.2022 suffers from the vice of irrationality and non-application of mind besides being perverse. 17. Situated thus, the appellants filed the Review Petition No. 03/2023 for review of the judgment and order dated 28.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)/61/2020. However, the learned Single Judge by an order dated 03.10.2023 has dismissed the review petition on the ground that said clerical mistake ought to have been corrected by way of corrigendum and not simply by way of clarification addressed to the Government Counsel, in view of the fact that the OMs are issued for circulating certain information to all concerned and not a particular individual. 18. The learned Additional AG further submits that it is a settled position of law that the question of limitation in reviewing the order passed by the High Court in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not apply when there is an error apparent on the face of record. However, the learned Single Judge dismissed the review petition on the ground of limitation. 19. It is submitted that the impugned judgment and order dated 28.06.2022 passed in WP(C)/61/2020 and the impugned order dated 31.10.2023 passed in Review Petition/3/2023 suffers from glaring illegality and deserves interference of this Hon’ble Court. 20. In support of her submission, Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Additional AG has relied upon the decision in the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India and Another vs. Netaji Cricket Club and Others, (2005) 4 SCC 741 , the relevant Para 90 of the said judgment is reproduced herein-below: “90. 20. In support of her submission, Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Additional AG has relied upon the decision in the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India and Another vs. Netaji Cricket Club and Others, (2005) 4 SCC 741 , the relevant Para 90 of the said judgment is reproduced herein-below: “90. Thus, a mistake on the part of the Court which would include a mistake in the nature of the undertaking may also call for a review of the order. An application for review would also be maintainable if there exist sufficient reason therefore. What would constitute sufficient reason would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The word “sufficient reason” in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code are wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a Court or even an Advocate. An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine “Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit.” 21. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional AG prays for quashing and setting aside the judgment dated 28.06.2022 passed in WP(C)/61/2020 and dismiss WP(C) No. 61/2020. She also prays for quashing and setting aside of the order dated 31.10.2023 passed in Review Petition No. 03/2023 and allow the Review Petition No. 03/2023. 22. On the other hand, Mr. Tongpok Pongener, learned counsel for the respondent while supporting the judgment and order dated 28.06.2022 passed in WP(C)/61/2020 and the order dated 31.10.2023 passed in review petition no. 03/2023 by the learned Single Judge submitted that the eligibility test was conducted in July, 2005 in different batches and the petitioner appeared the test on 13.07.2005 as directed in the Department’s Publication. The test consisted only of an oral interview. While appearing the test all the teachers were directed to submit original documents of examination admit cards, mark-sheets and certificates from matriculation to graduation. However, unfortunately the respondent had lost her original admit card and marksheets in respect of matriculation and pre-university and was in possession only of photo copies of the same and she had only the original admit card and mark sheet of B.A., as she had till then did not obtain her original graduation certificate from the university. She therefore requested and sought permission from the authority to allow her to appear the test based on the documents available with her. She therefore requested and sought permission from the authority to allow her to appear the test based on the documents available with her. And the authority had granted her permission to appear the test on the condition that she would submit the original certificate subsequently. After appearing the test, the petitioner applied for duplicate copies of the admit card and marksheet of matriculation and pre-university from the Nagaland Board of School Education (NBSE), the North Eastern Hill University (NEHU), Shillong and the said copies of certificates were issued to the petitioner on dated 29.08.2005, 08.08.2005 respectively. The petitioner also applied for the original copy of the graduation certificate from the Nagaland University and the said copy was also issued to the petitioner on dated 29.07.2005. Upon obtaining the said documents from the said institutions, the petitioner had submitted the same to the department and the department having verified the genuineness of the documents had returned the original certificates to the petitioner. 23. It is further submitted that the result of the eligibility test was not declared immediately. It was declared subsequently after long gap. By an order dated 04.12.2009 the department had regularized the service of 342 Graduate Teachers who had completed 5 years of continuous service as on 16.01.2004. Thereafter again the department on dated 08.06.2011 regularized the services of 91 Graduate Teachers who had completed 5 years of continuous services as on 16.01.2004. And both the above orders were issued in respect of the teachers who had appeared the eligibility test held way back in the month of July, 2005. It is further submitted that the said results for regularization came out after about 4 years and 7 years respectively of the said eligibility test. However, in the said two orders for regularisation, the name of petitioner was not included. 24. The learned counsel for the respondent while supporting the above judgments and orders dated 31.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Review Petition, further submitted that the ground taken for review was that the OM dated 18.02.2004 was superceded by the OM dated 23.08.2007 which was in turn superseded by the OM dated 04.08.2008. 24. The learned counsel for the respondent while supporting the above judgments and orders dated 31.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Review Petition, further submitted that the ground taken for review was that the OM dated 18.02.2004 was superceded by the OM dated 23.08.2007 which was in turn superseded by the OM dated 04.08.2008. And since the OM dated 04.08.2008 was declared to be unconstitutional by the Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 07.02.2019 in WA No. 16(K) 2018 by upholding the judgment and order of the Learned Single Judge dated 03.08.2018 passed in WP(C) No. 145/2017; the same had then become impossible for the review petitioners to consider the case of the respondent/writ petitioner herein under the OM dated 18.02.2004 as directed by the Hon’ble Single Judge. The review petitioner had also taken the stands that the superseded OM dated 18.08.2004 appearing in both OMs dated 23.08.2007 and 04.08.2008 should be read as 18.02.2004 as it was typographical mistake. 25. However, the claim of the respondent/writ petitioner is based on the eligibility test which was conducted on 13.07.2005, and that the said test was conducted prior to the super-session of the OM dated 18.02.2004 based on which the department had regularized the service of 342 Graduate Teachers on 04.12.2009 and thereafter again regularized the services of 91 contract Graduate Teachers on 08.06.2011. It is further submitted that the respondents had published the list of only 339 contract graduate teachers to appear in the eligibility test, but they have already regularised 342 graduate teachers by an order dated 04.12.2009 and 91 graduate teachers by an order dated 08.06.2011 which apparently are more than the numbers of the list of graduate teachers published by the respondent. And further both the said list for regularisation was done in the years 2009 and 2011 respectively, after the OM dated 18.02 2004 have already been superseded by the OM dated 23.08.2007 and subsequently by OM dated 04.08.2008. The petitioner having been appointed on 29.04.1998 is eligible for regularization along with those 342 and 91 Graduate Teachers whose services have been regularized by an order dated 04.12.2009 and 08.06.2011. And since the list for regularization were notified in batches, the respondent/writ petitioner was also expecting her name in the next list to be published by the respondent authority. The petitioner having been appointed on 29.04.1998 is eligible for regularization along with those 342 and 91 Graduate Teachers whose services have been regularized by an order dated 04.12.2009 and 08.06.2011. And since the list for regularization were notified in batches, the respondent/writ petitioner was also expecting her name in the next list to be published by the respondent authority. However, since no further list for regularization was forthcoming; therefore, she approached this Hon’ble court for direction for regularization of her Ad-hoc service based on the eligibility list published by the department for test and the eligibility test conducted in July, 2005. And upon consideration, the Hon’ble court has directed for similar relief as in the case of the other similarly situated persons. 26. The respondent/writ petitioner have also made it clear that she is not challenging the excess appointment of the teachers made by the respondent authority beyond the published list nor did she challenged the regularization of 433 graduate teachers after the OM dated 18.02.2004 had already been superseded. The claim of the respondent/writ petitioner is confined to the regularization of her services based on the said eligibility list published by the authority and her performance in the eligibility test in the year 2005 and on parity as has been done in the case of similarly situated graduate teachers. 27. The learned counsel for the respondent further submits that as per the Order 47 Rule 7 CPC, the order of the High Court rejecting the application for review of a judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is not appealable, as it is against the basic judgment. And further submits that Order 47 Rule 7 CPC also bars an appeal against the order of the Court rejecting the review. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the order rendered in the case Shankar Motiram Nale vs. Shiolal Singh Gannu Singh Rajput, (1994) 2 SCC 753 whereby it is held that Order 47 Rule 7 of CPC bars an appeal against the order of the Court rejecting the review. 28. The learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon the judgment rendered in case Bendangwatila vs. State of Nagaland, 2003 (1) GLT 526, the relevant Para 6 is reproduced herein-below: “6. 28. The learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon the judgment rendered in case Bendangwatila vs. State of Nagaland, 2003 (1) GLT 526, the relevant Para 6 is reproduced herein-below: “6. The dismissal of the appellant’s writ petition on the ground of latches, does not justify the power to be exercised by the court under Article 226 of the constitution, in the facts and circumstances which has been brought on record. For the aforesaid reasons we set aside the order dated 23.08.2002 of the learned Single Judge passed in WP(C) No. 175(K)/2002. We are aware of the fact that normally Courts are not expected to direct appointments to the posts but to direct consideration of the case for appointment but then there are always exception to the general rule and in each and every case the Court is not bound to follow this rule, which is more of prudence than of law. In a given circumstance, when the Courts conscience is shaken by blatant and naked act of executive which impugn upon the basic principles of “rule of law” the Court shall act and shall not remain silent spectator. In the facts and circumstances of the present case we have to direct the State respondents to give regular appointment to the appellant petitioner from the date on which Smti. T. Shilumongia and Smti. Pongjungimonla were given regular appointment to the post of Knitting Instructor. The appellant shall be entitled for the differences of regular salary which she is entitled to and the salary which has been paid to her from time to time, from the date of her regular appointment. The appellant shall also be entitled for all the service benefits, which under the relevant service rules the Knitting Instructor is entitled to. The writ appeal is allowed. No costs.” 29. It is further submitted that even otherwise also, as the State respondents has regularized the services of the similarly situated persons at the relevant time on the basis of the test conducted on 13.07.2005; and as the petitioner also had appeared in the same eligibility test conducted on 13.07.2005, the learned Single Judge did not commit any illegality while observing that the writ petitioner should also not be deprived of a similar benefit. And therefore, it is contended to dismiss the appeal. 30. Heard the submissions advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties. And therefore, it is contended to dismiss the appeal. 30. Heard the submissions advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused and considered the documents available on record. 31. In view of the pleadings as well as the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the issues arises to be decided by this Court are: (i) Whether the decision of learned Single Judge in directing the State respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in terms of the memorandum dated 18.02.2004 within a period of three months of receipt of certified copy of the said order suffers from any illegality or infirmity. (ii) Whether the rejection of the review petition by the learned Single Judge suffers from any illegality or any infirmity. 32. The facts as discernible from the record is that the respondent was appointed as Ad-hoc Graduate Teacher under the establishment of Deputy Inspector of School, Mokokchung, vide order dated 29.04.1998. And since then, she continued to be such and her said service has been extended from time to time. In the meantime, time the Government published OM dated 18.02.2004 which provides for regularisation of contract/ad-hoc appointments. In terms of the said provisions, the Department of School Education vide notification dated 27.06.2005 published the list of 339 ad-hoc/contract Graduate teachers in Nagaland who has completed 5 to 10 years of service as on 16.01.2004 to appear for eligibility test. In the said list, the petitioner’s name figured at serial no. 260 to appear the test on 13.07.2005. 33. There is no dispute to the fact that pursuant to the publication of the said list of Contract/Ad-hoc Graduate Teachers in the local newspaper on 29.06.2005, all the teachers whose names were included in the said list have already been regularized in service either by vide order dated 14.12.2009 or vide order dated 08.06.2011. There is also no dispute to the fact that against the list of 339 eligible graduate teachers published by the department to appear the eligibility test, the department have regularised altogether 342 and 92 teachers in two phases on 14.12.2009 and on 08.06.2011. 34. There is also no dispute to the fact that against the list of 339 eligible graduate teachers published by the department to appear the eligibility test, the department have regularised altogether 342 and 92 teachers in two phases on 14.12.2009 and on 08.06.2011. 34. Be that as it may, the petitioner has not raised the said issues of excess appointment in her writ petition; however, from the above, it appears from the above that the said eligibility test was a mere formality for the purpose of regularization of the contract/adhoc services who have completed 5-10 years of services as on 16.01.2004, in as much as no any other criteria like minimum or maximum marks were prescribed nor any of the contract/ad-hoc graduates teachers were left out from the said lists for regularization accept the respondent/writ petitioner. Thus, it is seen that in the case of the respondent/writ petitioner, although her name appeared at serial no. 260 of the list and as per the scheduled given to her, she had appeared for the eligibility test on the given date on 13.07.2005; but her name did not find place in the said two lists for regularization of the graduate teachers. This apparently in our considered view appears to be a case of left out case as observed by the learned Single Judge. 35. The contention of the appellant is that the petitioner did not appear for the eligibility test conducted on 13.07.2005 therefore, her service was not regularized. However, before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, the appellant/State respondents had not totally denied that the writ petitioner/respondent herein did not appear for the test on 13.07.2005. The State maintained that the record showing the appearance of the petitioner for the test was not available with them. The other contention of the State respondents before the learned Single Judge was that in view of the circular dated 06.04.2018 which was issued pursuant to the decision rendered by this Court in WP(C)/145(K)/2017, the regularization of the services of the petitioner cannot be taken up. However, as per the learned Single Judge, the judgment and order dated 03.08.2018 had directed the State respondent not to regularize the services of any person in terms of the OM dated 04.08.2008 and the memorandum dated 18.02.2004, which was relevant to the instant case has not been referred to in the said judgment and order. However, as per the learned Single Judge, the judgment and order dated 03.08.2018 had directed the State respondent not to regularize the services of any person in terms of the OM dated 04.08.2008 and the memorandum dated 18.02.2004, which was relevant to the instant case has not been referred to in the said judgment and order. This observation has not been clarified by the respondents. The learned Single Judge also observed that upon completion of 5 years of service after her initial appointment on 29.04.1998, the petitioner/respondent herein became entitled to be considered for regularization in terms of the memorandum dated 18.02.2004 and as her name was also included in the list of eligible teacher published in the local newspaper dated 29.06.2005 and therefore, in absence of any specific denial by the State respondent that the petitioner failed to appear for the test on the date specified, she will be entitled to be considered in terms of the memorandum dated 18.02.2004 and that the circular dated 06.04.2008 cannot be the basis for depriving her from such consideration. 36. Further it was observed that admittedly all the teachers who were similarly placed have been considered and regularized in terms of the memorandum dated 18.02.2004 and in that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge found that the grievance expressed by the petitioner to be legitimate. And accordingly, the writ petition was allowed with a direction to the respondent authority to consider the case of the writ petitioner for regularization in terms of the memorandum dated 18.02.2004. It is pertinent to mention here, that while passing the said order and direction, the learned Single Judge further made it clear that the said order should not be treated as a precedent in view of the fact that the case of the petitioner has been found to be left out at a relevant time, while other similarly situated teachers have been given the benefit of regularization. This observation is important as it appears as observed by us also in the preceding paragraph that the case of the respondent/writ petitioner is a left out case in as much as the services of all other eligible graduates teachers have already been regularized except the case of the respondent/writ petitioner. 37. This observation is important as it appears as observed by us also in the preceding paragraph that the case of the respondent/writ petitioner is a left out case in as much as the services of all other eligible graduates teachers have already been regularized except the case of the respondent/writ petitioner. 37. Further, it is not the case of the appellant that the respondent/writ petitioner was not eligible and her name was not in the list of graduate teachers to face eligibility test for consideration for regularisation. It is also not their case that the respondent/writ petitioner subsequently did not submit her original required certificate/documents in compliance of what she was asked to do so by the authority on the relevant day when the eligibility test was conducted. 38. Upon consideration, the observation made by the learned Single Judge appears to be absolutely correct and genuine in as much as the services of 342 and 91 teachers were already regularised in the year 2009 and 2011 respectively base on the eligibility test conducted in July, 2005 which were also found to have issued after the OM dated 18.02.2004 have already been superseded by OM dated 23.08.2007 and subsequently by OM dated 04.08.2008. In fact, we are also convinced that the case of the respondent seems to be a case of a left-out case at the relevant time as observed by the learned Single Judge, which required due consideration in order to avoid injustice against her due to in-equal treatment of the equals. Upon consideration, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the said judgment and order of the learned Single Judge and as such the said judgment and order dated 28.06.2022 does not warrant any interference by this Court. 39. Now coming to the second point, it appears that the appellant filed the review petition by invoking section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking review of the above judgment and order dated 28.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)/61/2020. The ground taken for review was that the OM dated 18.02.2004 was superseded by the OM dated 23.08.2007 which was in turn superseded by the OM dated 04.08.2008. The ground taken for review was that the OM dated 18.02.2004 was superseded by the OM dated 23.08.2007 which was in turn superseded by the OM dated 04.08.2008. Since the OM dated 04.08.2008 was declared to be unconstitutional by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 07.02.2019 in WA/16(K)/2018 by upholding the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 03.08.2018 passed in WP(C)/145(K)/2017, it has now become impossible for the review petitioner/appellant herein to consider the case of the respondent/writ petitioner under the OM dated 18.02.2004 as directed by the learned Single Judge. The review petitioner/ appellant herein has also taken the stand that the superseded OM dated 18.08.2004 in both the OMs dated 23.08.2007 and 04.08.2008 should be read as 18.02.2004 as it was a typographical mistake. Whereas the respondent/writ petitioner while reiterating the statements made in the writ petition further contended that the review application was not maintainable on the ground of delay and even if the limitation does not apply in the said review proceeding, the applicant ought to have given some explanation for belatedly filing the review petition and, as the same has not been done, the review petition was liable to be dismissed on that ground as well. 40. The learned Single Judge maintained that the sole ground taken by the review petitioner/appellant herein for review of the judgment and order dated 28.06.2022 was that the OM dated 18.02.2004 had already been superseded by the OM dated 23.08.2007 and 04.08.2008. The Learned Single Judge found that the earlier OM dated 18.02.2004 has been superseded but the contention of the review petitioner that the OM dated 18.08.2004 indicated was out of clerical mistake and the same should be read as 18.02.2004. The Learned Single Judge found that the earlier OM dated 18.02.2004 has been superseded but the contention of the review petitioner that the OM dated 18.08.2004 indicated was out of clerical mistake and the same should be read as 18.02.2004. It was further observed that “.......the so-called clerical mistake had occurred both in the OM dated 23.08.2007 and 04.08.2008 and thus the same ought to have been corrected by way of corrigendum and not simply by way of clarification addressed to the Government counsel in view of the fact that OMs are issued for circulating certain information to all concerned and not to a particular individual.....” The learned Single Judge further observed that even otherwise also, the fact remains that the regularization of similarly situated person at a particular time on the basis of eligibility test conducted on 13.07.2005 and in the writ petition, the learned Single Judge was of the view that the State respondent did not totally deny the fact that the writ petitioner appeared for the test conducted on 13.07.2005 and the only stand taken by the state was that they did not have the records showing her appearance for the test. Further, the learned Single Judge in the writ petition found that the name of the writ petitioner was also included in the list of eligible teachers published in the local newspaper dated 29.06.2005. And that it was under such circumstances that the learned Single Judge observed that as similarly situated teachers have all been considered for regularization, the writ petitioner should not be deprived of similar benefit. Therefore, while directing for consideration of the case of the writ petitioner for regularization, the specific observation was made that the order should not be treated as a precedent since the case of the writ petitioner was found to be left out case at the relevant time while all other similarly situated teachers were given the benefit of regularization. 41. The learned Single Judge also observed that the judgment and order sought to be reviewed was passed on 28.06.2022 whereas the review petition was filed only on 02.06.2023, after almost a year. 41. The learned Single Judge also observed that the judgment and order sought to be reviewed was passed on 28.06.2022 whereas the review petition was filed only on 02.06.2023, after almost a year. The observation of the learned single judge is quoted bellow: “......It is further seen that the case of the Kanak Chandra Sarma vs. The Board of Secondary Education, Assam and Others, (1995) 1 GLR 116 relied upon by the review petitioner was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mori Riba vs. Yomkar Riba and Others, 2011 Gauhati 181 wherein the Hon’ble court observed at Para 9 as follows: “9. Because of what has been discussed and pointed out above, while we agree with the observation, made in the case of Sri Kanak Chandra Sarma (supra), that the article 124 of the Limitation Act, would not apply to an application for review of an order passed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, we clarify that the High Court would not, ordinarily, entertain an application for review if the same is made beyond the period of 30 days as prescribed by the Limitation Act, on the ground that the public policy is not to, ordinarily, entertain an application for review beyond the period of 30 days from the date of making of the order. It would, however, remain open to the High Court to entertain, in a given case, an application for review even if such an application is filed beyond the period of 30 days provided that the High Court is satisfied that the applicant has sufficient reasons for not being able to apply for review earlier.” 42. And further observed that the observation and finding of the Division Bench was also agreed upon by the Full Bench of the High Court of Meghalaya in the case of Shella Action Committee vs. State of Meghalaya and Others, 2017 (2) GLT (FB) (ML) 801 where a similar issue arose and was considered. 43. And further observed that the observation and finding of the Division Bench was also agreed upon by the Full Bench of the High Court of Meghalaya in the case of Shella Action Committee vs. State of Meghalaya and Others, 2017 (2) GLT (FB) (ML) 801 where a similar issue arose and was considered. 43. The learned Single Judge further observed that in the instant case no explanation has been made or was discernible as to why the review petition was filed only on 02.06.2023 for reviewing the judgment which was passed almost a year back and upon consideration of their application in its entirety, the learned Single Judge did not find any ground to allow the review petitioner and as a result the same was dismissed. 44. Upon consideration and in view of what has been observed by the learned Single Judge and in view of the provision under Order 47 Rule 7 of CPC which bars an appeal against the order of the Court rejecting the review and also in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shankar Motiram Nale vs. Shiolal Singh Gannu Singh Rajput (Supra) which has not been disputed, we found sufficient force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent. 45. Accordingly, after consideration of the entirety of the case, we are of the considered view that the direction and observations made in the impugned judgment and order dated 26.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 61/2020 and the judgment and order dated 31.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Review Pet./3/2023 does not call for any interference. 46. For the reasons stated above, this writ appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed.