Public interest litigations in service matters should not be entertained, and the provision of review is not to scrutinize the correctness of the decision rendered but to correct any error visible on the face of the order/record without considering the possibility of another opinion different from the one expressed.

JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. (Oral)

REVIEW PETITION 46/2023

1. The present review petition is arising out of an order dated 22.11.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.(C.) No. 4301/2017.

2. The facts of the case reveal that a writ petition was preferred by the Petitioner as a Public Interest Litigation in the year 2017 claiming himself to be General Secretary Sambhavana Organization challenging the appointments of Respondent Nos. 5 to 17 on the ground that they do not have the requisite qualifications to be appointed as Teachers.

3. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2/GNCTD did file a detailed and exhaustive affidavit furnishing all minute details in respect of qualification of the Teachers stating that the teachers in question were fulfilling the requisite qualifications as prescribed under the Recruitment Rules and after taking into account the contents on affidavit, the PIL stands disposed of.

4. The Petitioner has filed a review and has vehemently argued before this Court that by no stretch of imagination the Petition could have been dismissed as non-maintainable and this Court has committed an error apparent on the face of record by relying upon the judgment delivered in the case of Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Others, (1998) 7 SCC 273. It has also been argued that this Court has erred in law and on facts in not taking into account the statutory provisions as contained under The Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992 and an error has been committed by this Court by relying upon the educational qualifications prescribed under the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 read with the Recruitment Rules.

5. This Court has heard learned Counsel for the Review Petitioner at length and perused the record. It is an undisputed fact that the writ petition was filed challenging the appointment of Respondent Nos. 5 to 17 alleging that they do not hold the qualification required for the post in question. The Recruitment Rules and the counter affidavit brought on record and the minute details furnished in respect of all the private Respondents has established that they were holding the qualifications required for the post in question. In those circumstances, the PIL stands disposed of.

6. It has been vehemently argued before this Court that the judgment delivered in the case of Dr. Duryodhan Sahu (supra) was a case arising out of Central Administrative Tribunal and, therefore, the judgment delivered in the case of Dr. Duryodhan Sahu (supra) deserves to be distinguished and has no applicability in the present case.

7. This Court has carefully gone through the judgment delivered in the case of Dr. Duryodhan Sahu (lsupra). It is true that the said case was arising out of proceedings initiated before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Paragraph 18 of the aforesaid judgment read as under:

"18. The constitution of Administrative Tribunals was necessitated because of the large pendency of cases relating to service matters in various courts in the country. It was expected that the setting up of Administrative Tribunals to deal exclusively in service matters would go a long way in not only reducing the burden of the courts but also provide to the persons covered by the Tribunals speedy relief in respect of their grievances. The basic idea as evident from the various provisions of the Act is that the Tribunal should quickly redress the grievances in relation to service matters. The definition of "service matters" found in Section 3(q) shows that in relation to a person, the expression means all service matters relating to the conditions of his service. The significance of the word "his" cannot be ignored. Section 3(b) defines the word "application" as an application made under Section 19. The latter section refers to "person aggrieved". In order to bring a matter before the Tribunal, an application has to be made and the same can be made only by a person aggrieved by any order pertaining to any matter within the jurisd