IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's interpretation of the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to reach injustice wherever it is found and the maintainability of the review petition.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. - CM APPL. 59435/2023 (for delay)

This is an application filed by the petitioners / applicants seeking condonation of 212 days delay in filing the review petition.

Though, the learned counsel for the respondents has serious objection with regard to the same, for the reasons stated in the application and in the interest of justice, the delay is condoned. The application is disposed of.

CM APPL. 62227/2023

This is an application filed by the petitioners / applicants seeking permission to file additional documents on record.

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the additional documents are taken on record. The application is disposed of.

REVIEW PET. 321/2023

1. This review petition has been filed by the petitioners herein seeking review of order dated March 13, 2023. Vide the said order, we have dismissed the writ petition by stating in paragraphs 15 onwards as under:

"15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents. The fact that, 2000 vacancies are to be filled on regular basis out of which 1300 posts have already been filled and we have been informed that the remaining 700 vacancies shall be filled by June, 2023, there by the engagement of the contractual employees shall be dispensed with, then no direction can be given to re-engage/re-appoint the petitioners on contract basis.

16. No doubt the reason for termination of the petitioners may not be appropriate, but we are of the view that, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, as there is no requirement for contractual employees, any direction to reengage the petitioners, cannot be given.

17. We have seen the judgments as relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners. In the peculiar facts of this case, we are of the view that the said judgments shall not be applicable. Hence, the only plea urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted.

18. The petition is dismissed. The applications are dismissed as infructuous. No costs."

2. The primary ground on which the review is sought by the petitioners is that pursuant to impugned order dated March 13, 2023, the respondents have extended the tenure of existing contractual employees in the Month of April 2023 till April 18, 2023 instead of replacing them with permanent employees. According to Mr. Abhinay Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the above fact was concealed from this Court and had the same not been done, this Court would not have dismissed the writ petition. Moreso, when the impugned judgment reveals that the petitioners were entitled for the reliefs as prayed before this Court.

3. He submitted that because of the false, wrong, incorrect and misleading statements made by the respondents before this Court, the petitioners were deprived of salary since at least April 2023 which they were entitled for, as a bare perusal of impugned order shows that this Court would have granted the relief to the petitioners, if the respondents had not misrepresented in the manner they did, as can be seen from paragraphs 15 and 16 of the impugned order which have already been reproduced in paragraph 1 above.

4. He further submitted that it was the case of the respondents before this Court in the writ petition that the remaining 700 vacancies shall be filled by June, 2023, and thereby the engagement of the contractual employees shall be dispensed with and on the basis of such statement, this Court passed the impugned order that no direction can be given to re-engage/re-appoint the petitioners on contract basis.

5. It is also his case that the petitioners came to know only in the month of October, i.e., 12/13 October, 2023 about the extension of the tenure of the contractual employees till April 18, 2024 and the direct appointment of LOP candidate from the ACIO-II 2020 notification on the post of DFO.

6. So, he submitted that in view of the position that the respondents hav