LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a review petition filed by non-parties to a previous litigation should be entertained when the issue has been considered multiple times.
CASE TYPE: Service Law
Case Name: Vijay Pratap Yadav and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
Judgment Date: 23 February 2022
Date of the Judgment: 23rd February 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 2272
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and Ajay Rastogi, J.
Can a review petition be entertained when the same issue has already been decided multiple times by the Supreme Court? This question was addressed in a recent case concerning teacher recruitment in Uttar Pradesh. The Supreme Court, in this case, had to decide whether to allow a review petition filed by individuals who were not originally part of the case. The Court ultimately rejected the review petition, emphasizing that the matter had already been thoroughly considered. The bench comprised Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay Rastogi.
Case Background
The case revolves around the recruitment of teachers in Uttar Pradesh. Initially, a selection process was initiated based on a notification dated 07.12.2012. However, this process was challenged, and the Supreme Court, in an earlier judgment, allowed the State Government to fill the remaining vacancies through a fresh selection process after issuing a new advertisement. The petitioners in the present case were not part of the original litigation, but they sought to challenge the Supreme Court’s decision.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 07.12.2012 | Initial notification for teacher recruitment issued. |
| 26.07.2021 | Supreme Court disposes of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11323 of 2021, allowing fresh selection process. |
| 09.09.2021 | Miscellaneous Application No. 1391 of 2021 was rejected. |
| 11.01.2022 | Review Petition (Civil) No. 32 of 2022 was dismissed by the Supreme Court. |
| 23.02.2022 | Present Review Petition (Civil) D.No. 1027 of 2022 was dismissed. |
Course of Proceedings
The matter initially came before the Supreme Court as a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11323 of 2021, which was disposed of on 26.07.2021, allowing the State to conduct a fresh selection process. Following this, a Miscellaneous Application No. 1391 of 2021 was rejected on 09.09.2021. A Review Petition (Civil) No. 32 of 2022 was then filed by the original petitioners, which was also dismissed on 11.01.2022. The present Review Petition was filed by those who were not parties to the original litigation. The Supreme Court noted that the matter had been considered on three previous occasions.
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily deals with the procedural aspects of review petitions and does not delve into specific statutory provisions. However, the underlying issue relates to the State’s power to conduct teacher recruitment and the rights of candidates who participated in the initial selection process.
Arguments
The petitioners, who were not parties to the original litigation, argued that the selection process based on the earlier notification dated 07.12.2012 should have been taken to its logical conclusion. They also raised a subsidiary issue regarding the refund of fees deposited by the candidates.
In the Review Petition (Civil) No. 32 of 2022, the petitioners had contended that 95 candidates who did not meet the criteria of 60% for reserved category and 70% for unreserved category as per the interim orders of the Court were wrongly selected.
The Supreme Court, however, found no merit in these submissions and dismissed the review petition.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submission | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Selection Process | The selection process based on the notification dated 07.12.2012 should have been completed. | Petitioners (Non-Parties) |
| Refund of Fees | Fees deposited by the candidates should be refunded. | Petitioners (Non-Parties) |
| Incorrect Selection | 95 candidates were wrongly selected for not fulfilling the criteria of 60% for reserved category and 70% of unreserved category. | Petitioners in Review Petition (Civil) No. 32 of 2022 |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in this order. However, the core issue was whether to grant permission to non-parties to file a review petition after the matter had been considered multiple times.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | How the Court Dealt with It |
|---|---|
| Whether to grant permission to non-parties to file a review petition? | The Court refused to grant permission, noting that the controversy had already been considered on three previous occasions. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court cited the case of State of U.P and others v. Shiv Kumar Pathak and others, which allowed the State Government to fill up the remaining vacancies in accordance with law and after issuance of fresh advertisement.
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| State of U.P and others v. Shiv Kumar Pathak and others | Supreme Court of India | Followed |
Judgment
The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, stating that the controversy had been considered on three previous occasions. The Court saw no reason to grant permission to the petitioners, who were not parties to the original litigation, to file a review petition.
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| The selection process based on the notification dated 07.12.2012 should have been completed. | Rejected. The Court had already allowed a fresh selection process. |
| Fees deposited by the candidates should be refunded. | Not addressed in detail; impliedly rejected. |
| 95 candidates were wrongly selected for not fulfilling the criteria of 60% for reserved category and 70% of unreserved category. | Rejected. The Court found no merit in this submission. |
| Authority | How the Court Viewed It |
|---|---|
| State of U.P and others v. Shiv Kumar Pathak and others | The Court followed this authority, which allowed the State to conduct a fresh selection process. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the matter had already been considered multiple times. The Court emphasized that the same issue should not be re-litigated repeatedly. The Court also noted that the petitioners were not parties to the original litigation, which further weighed against granting them permission to file a review petition.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Matter already considered multiple times | 70% |
| Petitioners were not original parties | 30% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the principle of finality of judgments and the need to avoid repetitive litigation. The Court stated:
“The controversy having been considered on three occasions, we see no reason to grant the permission as prayed for.”
The Court also noted that the review petition was filed by those who were not parties to the original litigation.
The Court did not delve into alternative interpretations, as it found no merit in the submissions made by the petitioners.
Key Takeaways
- ✓ The Supreme Court will not entertain review petitions from non-parties when the issue has been considered multiple times.
- ✓ The principle of finality of judgments is crucial to avoid repetitive litigation.
- ✓ Fresh selection processes can be initiated by the State even if an earlier process was challenged.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this order.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court will not entertain review petitions from non-parties when the issue has already been considered multiple times. This reinforces the principle of finality of judgments and serves as a reminder that the Supreme Court is not a forum for re-litigating settled issues. There is no change in the previous position of law.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the review petition filed by non-parties, emphasizing that the matter concerning teacher recruitment in Uttar Pradesh had already been considered multiple times. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of finality in judicial proceedings and discourages repetitive litigation on settled issues.