THE COURT CANNOT REVIEW ITS OWN JUDGMENT MERELY BECAUSE IT IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW OR ON THE GROUND THAT A DIFFERENT VIEW COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE COURT/TRIBUNAL ON A POINT OF FACT OR LAW.

JUDGMENT

Apurba Sinha Ray, J.

1. An application for review of the judgment and order dated 12.01.2010 delivered in MAT No. 1118 of 2009 has been filed on the grounds, interalia:-

a) that the application has been necessitated in view of the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, even after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant for which the same could not be produced at the time when the impugned order dated 12.01.2010 was passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in MAT No. 1118 of 2009,

b) that there is an error apparent on the face of the order dated 12.01.2010 passed in MAT No. 1118 of 2009. While recording that there were four other OBC candidates at serial No. 55, 57, 61 and 66 of the General List who are above the applicant as OBC candidates, the Hon’ble Division Bench did not consider that in fact no documents are available with the respondent No. 1 to classify those candidates as employment exchange sponsored OBC candidates and thus mere version of the respondent No. 1 ought not to be accepted,

c) that in view of the contents of the letter dated 23.04.2013 issued by the respondent No. 1 which confirms that all the alleged OBC candidates to whom appointments were given by the respondents are treated as general category appointments and it is settled law that such appointments cannot be treated as appointment in OBC reserved quota and thus in fact no appointments were made by the respondent No. 1 on OBC reserved quota in terms of order no. 261-TW/EC dated 06.04.1995 issued by the Government of West Bengal, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Welfare Department, Writers’ Building, Calcutta,

d) that this review application has been necessitated in view of the fact, which subsequently came to the notice of the applicant, that candidate nos. 27 and 28 from the list of general candidate, candidate nos. 3 and 7 from the list of departmental scheduled tribe candidates and candidate no. 3 from list of scheduled tribe candidate had not joined the post and in view of such non-joining by said candidates the respondent authority ought to have granted employment to the applicant along with other eligible OBC candidates,

e) that there was serious discrimination as no separate panel for OBC candidates was formed although separate panels for scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates were formed by the respondent no. 1,

f) that before publication of merit list or panel for general candidates, appointments were given to candidate nos. 2, 32, 37, 44 and 48 and as such the action of the respondent no. 1 suffers from material irregularity and illegality,

g) that, therefore, there are sufficient grounds to review the solemn judgment and order dated 12.01.2010 delivered by the Division Bench in MAT No. 1118 of 2009. Accordingly, for the interest of justice and equity, the applicant prays for review of the judgment and order dated 12.01.2010 as aforesaid.

2. Learned Counsel, Mr. Achintya Kumar Banerjee, appearing on behalf of the applicant has time and again submitted that the petitioner has been fighting for cause of justice since 1997 and in spite of presence of glaring illegalities and irregularities at the instance of the respondent no. 1 and its officers, the applicant was unable to get justice from the court of law as the concerned authorities suppressed material facts, documents and other papers with the sole motive to deprive the applicant from being appointed in the post of Junior Assistant in the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. Learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this court to several documents, which according to him, were obtained by the applicant after delivery of the judgment and order dated 12.01.2010. From a cursory glance over the said documents, it will be found that relevant norms for recruiting staff in the OBC category or reserved category were not followed by the conce