The court upheld that a review can be granted to an aggrieved individual, including non-parties, if vital amendments affecting the case were not earlier considered.

JUDGMENT :

Jay Sengupta, J.

1. This is an application for review and recall of the judgement and order dated 19.04.2023 passed by this Court in WPA 21631 of 2022 (Pradip Prasad vs State of West Bengal & Ors.).

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted as follows. The above writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the vacancy notification dated 27.04.2022. The State respondents filed opposition to the writ petition, but writ petitioner did not filed any reply to the said opposition. Vacancy notification dated 27.04.2022 was challenged by the petitioner only on the ground that said notification was not published in the Gazette Notification. At the time of the hearing of the writ petition, the petitioner relied on the un-amended provision of Clause 20 of the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013, but did not place amended provision of Clause 20 of the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013 before this Court. This Court, upon considering the un-amended Clause 20 of the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013, set aside the vacancy notice dated 27.04.2022. By a Gazette Notification dated 11-04-2022, the respondent authority substituted Clause 20 of the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013 and in terms of said amended Clause 20 of the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013, issued the vacancy notice in question dated 27-04-2022. The applicant above named submitted his application against the said vacancy notice dated 27-04-2022. The respondents authority upon considering the application of the applicant and after enquiry at the godown and shop of the applicant, recommended the candidature of the applicant for being appointed as a MR dealer against the vacancy in question. The applicant downloaded a copy of the said recommendation from the official website of the respondent. The Shop Selection Committee also issued letter for interview to the applicant in terms of Control Order, 2013, but did not proceed with the matter because the vacancy notice in question was sub-judice before this Hon'ble Court. The applicant upon having knowledge of setting aside of the vacancy notice dated 27-04-2022 filed the present Review Application for review of the Judgment dated 19-04-2023 since the applicant had an accrued right to be consider for being appointed against the vacancy dated 27-04-2022. The writ petitioner submitted that since the writ petition had been disposed of and therefore, writ petition could not be re-opened and the applicant could not be added as a respondent in the writ petition. The writ petitioner also relied the authority to support the above submissions, but did not make any submission with regard to review of the Judgment dated 19-04-2023. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant above named that since the writ petition was disposed of without considering the amended provision of clause 20 of Control Order, 2013 and the fact stated above, therefore, the applicant being aggrieved person has every right to file review petition to review the judgment dated 19-04-2023. The applicant had accrued right in terms of vacancy notice dated 27-04-2022, but could not get the license because of setting aside of the vacancy notice dated 27-04-2022 by this Court. The provision clause 20 of Control Order, 2013 was substituted by a Gazette Notification dated 11.04.2022. Therefore, vacancy notice dated 27.04.2022 was not required to be published in Gazette in terms of Control Order,