JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate for the review petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Majumdar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. T. Gyadi, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This application, under Chapter X of the Gauhati High Court Rules, read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is preferred by the four petitioners i.e. (1) the State of Arunachal Pradesh, represented by the Chief Secretary, (2) The Secretary, District Administration Department, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, (3) Chairmancum- Deputy Commissioner of DPC dated 30.06.2020 and (4) the Deputy Commissioner, Seppa, East Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh for reviewing the Judgment and Order dated 06.12.2021, passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 12/2021 (Shri Kacho Gyadi Vs. the State of A.P & Others).

3. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under:-

“On 30.06.2020, a DPC was held under the chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner, Seppa for filling up of 8 vacant posts of Multi Tasking Staffs (MTS). The DPC has decided to fill up 3 posts by direct recruitment, out of the 8 posts, and further decided to fill up the remaining 5 posts, 3 from the senior most members of Agency Labour Corps (ALC) and 2 from senior most unskilled contingency workers of the establishment of Deputy Commissioner, Seppa. Out of the 3 posts, reserved for the ALC, 2 posts were filled up by APST and one post was filled up by non-APST against unreserved vacancies. Being aggrieved by the said decision of the DPC, the respondent No. 1, namely, Shri Kacho Gyadi had filed one writ petition, being WP(C) No. 12/2021, challenging the appointment of non-APST candidate to the post of MTS even though, the candidate was junior to him. The said appointments were made from the ALC, following the Cabinet decision of 1984. Thereafter, vide Judgment and Order dated 06.12.2021, while allowing the writ petition, this Court was pleased to set aside the DPC recommendation dated 31.06.2020, with regard to private respondents in the said writ petition, and it was directed to constitute a fresh DPC in terms of the observations made in the said Judgment. But, the said Judgment dated 06.12.2021, could not be given effect to as it was found that the Rules 2019, governing the appointment to the post of Group ‘C’ MTS, does not provide for appointment from the post of ALC and only unskilled Contingency staffs are eligible for such promotion/appointment to the post of MTS, though, subsequently, new Rules were framed making such avenue for the ALC. As there was no provision in the Rules 2019 for ALC, the entire DPC proceeding, in respect of appointment from the post of ALC is illegal and therefore, the petitioners approached this Court for review of the Judgment and Order dated 06.12.2021 on a grounds that:-

(a) That, there was error apparent on the face of the record that has crept in the Judgment and Order dated 06.12.2021;

(b) That, patent mistake had been crept in the impugned Judgment & Order, dated 06.12.2021;

(c) That, while promoting the ALCs to the post of MTS, the Deputy Commissioner, Seppa relied upon a Cabinet decision of 1984, though such amendment was never made in the Recruitment Rules;

(d) That, the Recruitment Rules to the post of MTS was brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner, Seppa only after the Judgment and Order dated 06.12.2021. As such, the said Recruitment Rules could not be brought to the notice of this Court before passing the impugned Judgment and Order dated 06.12.2021;

(e) That, the Recruitment Rules to the post of Group ‘C’ MTS only provides for filling up the posts from amongst the unskilled contingency staffs and there is no provision under the said rules for appointment of ALC to the post of MTS;

(f) That, the 2019 Recruitment Rules to the post of MTS was not within the knowledge of the Deputy Commissioner, Seppa and as such, could not be brought to the knowledge of this Court when the Judgment