Supreme Court Rejects Review Petition on Uttar Pradesh Teacher Recruitment: Vijay Pratap Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (23 February 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 23rd February 2022
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and Ajay Rastogi, J.

The Supreme Court of India was recently asked to consider a review petition filed by individuals who were not originally part of a case concerning the recruitment of teachers in Uttar Pradesh. The core issue was whether the court should re-examine its previous decisions on the matter, especially when the petitioners were not involved in the original proceedings. This case highlights the importance of finality in judicial decisions and the limitations on who can seek a review.

Case Background

The case revolves around a dispute concerning the recruitment of teachers in Uttar Pradesh. Initially, a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11323 of 2021 was filed, which was disposed of by the Supreme Court on 26th July 2021. Following this, a Miscellaneous Application No. 1391 of 2021 was filed and subsequently rejected on 9th September 2021. A Review Petition (Civil) No. 32 of 2022 was then filed by the original petitioners, which was also dismissed on 11th January 2022. The present Review Petition was filed by individuals who were not parties to the original litigation.

The original dispute arose from a notification dated 07.12.2012 for teacher recruitment. The petitioners argued that the selection process initiated under this notification should have been completed. They also raised concerns about the refund of fees they had deposited. The Supreme Court had previously allowed the State Government to fill the remaining vacancies through a fresh selection process after a fresh advertisement, as per the decision in *State of U.P and others v. Shiv Kumar Pathak and others*.

The petitioners in the review petition argued that 95 candidates who did not meet the criteria of 60% for reserved categories and 70% for unreserved categories, as per interim orders of the Court, were wrongly selected.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court had initially disposed of the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11323 of 2021 on 26th July 2021, which was against the order dated 03.12.2019 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. The Court had allowed the State Government to conduct a fresh selection process. Subsequently, the original petitioners filed a Miscellaneous Application No. 1391 of 2021, which was rejected. They then filed a Review Petition (Civil) No. 32 of 2022, which was also dismissed. The present review petition was filed by individuals who were not parties to the original litigation.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to the Supreme Court’s decision in *State of U.P and others v. Shiv Kumar Pathak and others*, which granted the State Government the liberty to fill up the remaining vacancies in accordance with law and after issuing a fresh advertisement. The legal framework primarily involves the interpretation of the Supreme Court’s powers to review its own decisions and the principles of finality in litigation.

Arguments

The original petitioners argued that the selection process initiated under the Notification dated 07.12.2012 should have been taken to its logical conclusion. They also raised a subsidiary issue regarding the refund of fees. The petitioners in the review petition argued that 95 candidates who did not meet the criteria of 60% for reserved categories and 70% for unreserved categories, as per interim orders of the Court, were wrongly selected.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in this order. However, the core issue was whether the review petition filed by non-parties to the original litigation should be entertained.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Court referred to the case of *State of U.P and others v. Shiv Kumar Pathak and others*, wherein the State Government was granted liberty to fill up the remaining vacancies in accordance with law and after issuance of fresh advertisement.

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, stating that the matter had been considered on three previous occasions. The Court found no reason to grant permission to the non-parties to file the review petition. The Court emphasized that the controversy had been considered multiple times and there was no justification for re-examining the matter.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• *State of U.P and others v. Shiv Kumar Pathak and others*: The Court followed this decision to justify the State Government’s action in initiating a fresh selection process.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle of finality in litigation. The fact that the matter had been considered on three previous occasions weighed heavily against granting permission for the review petition. The Court emphasized that there was no new ground or justification for re-examining the matter, indicating a strong preference for concluding the litigation.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was more focused on the legal principle of finality and the procedural aspect of review petitions rather than the specific factual details of the case.

The Court’s decision was based on the procedural history of the case and the principle of finality, rather than a detailed re-examination of the factual matrix.

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, “We have gone through the grounds raised in the review petition and find no reason to justify interference in this review petition.”

The Court concluded, “Consequently, the instant Review Petition is closed.”

Key Takeaways

• A review petition by non-parties to an original litigation is unlikely to be entertained, especially if the matter has been considered multiple times.
• The principle of finality in litigation is a significant factor in the Supreme Court’s decision-making process.
• The Supreme Court is hesitant to re-examine issues that have already been decided unless there are compelling reasons.

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, especially when the matter has been considered multiple times. This reinforces the principle of finality in litigation and highlights the limitations on who can seek a review of a court’s decision. There is no change in the previous position of law, but it underscores the importance of finality in judicial decisions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition filed by non-parties, emphasizing that the matter had already been considered on three previous occasions. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of finality in litigation and the limitations on who can seek a review of a court’s decision. The judgment reinforces the principle that the Supreme Court is hesitant to re-examine issues that have already been decided unless there are compelling reasons.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law

Child Categories:

• Teacher Recruitment
• Review Petition
• Finality of Judgments
• State of U.P and others v. Shiv Kumar Pathak and others

FAQ

Q: Can someone who was not part of the original case file a review petition?
A: Generally, no. The Supreme Court is hesitant to entertain review petitions from non-parties, especially if the matter has been considered multiple times. This is to ensure finality in legal proceedings.

Q: What does it mean when the Supreme Court says a matter has been considered multiple times?
A: It means that the same issue or dispute has been brought before the court in various forms, such as through special leave petitions, miscellaneous applications, and review petitions. The court is less likely to re-examine the matter if it has already been considered in these various forms.

Q: Why is finality in litigation important?
A: Finality in litigation is important to ensure that legal disputes come to a conclusion. This allows individuals and entities to move on without the constant threat of re-litigation. It also promotes efficiency in the judicial system.

Q: What is a review petition?
A: A review petition is a request to a court to re-examine its own decision. It is typically filed when there is an error apparent on the face of the record or if there is a significant reason to reconsider the decision.

Q: What was the original issue in this case?
A: The original issue was related to the recruitment of teachers in Uttar Pradesh. The petitioners argued that the selection process initiated under a previous notification should have been completed and also raised concerns about the refund of fees.