The central legal point established in the judgment is that eligibility for higher pay-scale benefits is determined by the completion of service years, irrespective of the date of passing the departmental examination, and candidates should not suffer due to the authorities' failure to adhere to examination rules.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar waves service of rule on behalf of the opponents.

2. The present Misc. Civil Application seeking review is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.08.2021 passed in the captioned writ petition.

3. The applicant-State authorities have filed the present application seeking review / recall of the judgment and order dated 03.08.2021 primarily on the ground that the opponent-original petitioners have not disclosed the fact of they having being passed the departmental examination in three chances.

4. Learned Government Pleader Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, while placing reliance on the details (statement–annexed at Annexure-B) in the present review application, has submitted that the opponents-petitioners had joined the service in the year 1993 and had cleared the Sub-Service Departmental Examination (SSD) and thereafter, they were permitted to appear in the Land Records Lower Qualifying (LRQ) examination held on 1998 till 2001, however the opponents did not clear the said examination, after having participated twice. It is submitted that the departmental examination, which was conducted in the year 2001 i.e. on 30.04.2001 to 06.05.2001, all the present opponents had cleared the examination, of which, the result was declared on 22.04.2022 and hence, as per the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994, more particularly Clause 3(9) thereof, they were conferred the benefits on 22.04.2002 i.e. from the date of declaring the result. Thus, it is submitted that since the opponents have not stated the correct facts before the Court, while the matter was being persuaded by them, hence, the judgment and order dated 03.08.2021 conferring the benefits of the higher pay-scale to the petitioners from the date of eligibility is required to be reviewed and recalled. It is submitted that the opponents have not disclosed such vital aspect in the writ petition, hence the order may be recalled.

4.1 Learned Government Pleader has placed reliance on the Rules called the Land Records Lower Qualifying Examination Rules, 2010 and has submitted that as per the said Rules, more particularly Rule 7 thereof, the candidate or the person, who is appearing for the Land Records Lower Qualifying examination, must have completed five years continuous service and passed Sub-Service Departmental Examination, unless he has been exempted from passing that examination. She has submitted that all the opponents-petitioners, after they cleared the SSD examination, were required to clear the examination within three chances in three years, as per Rule 3(1), and since they did not do so and cleared the LRQ examination in the year 2002, they were conferred the benefits of the higher pay-scale from the date of the result of LRQ examination. Thus, it is submitted that instead of their actual date of eligibility, after completion of 9 years in the month of January, 2000, they would be entitled to the higher pay-scale w.e.f. 22.04.2002. Thus, it is submitted that the present review application may be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Majmudar, appearing for the opponents–original petitioners has submitted that the impugned order does not require any interference, as the same is appropriately passed.

5.1 While referring to the judgment and order dated 03.08.2021 of which, the review is sought, he has submitted that in fact, the respondent authorities did not hold the examination as per the Land Records Lower Qualifying Examination Rules, 1970, which were annexed in the petition more particularly Rules 3 and 7 of the Rules, 1970 and hence, the opponents cannot be made to suffer due to the inaction of the respondent authorities.

5.2 Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar, has submitted that as per Rule 7 of the Rules 1970, the respondent authorities were required to hold the examination twice in the months of April and October in a year, however in the present case, the said rule is violated. Additionally, it is submitted t