JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri P.K. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the applicants, who by means of this application has prayed for review of the judgment and order dated 18.08.2016 passed in WP(C)5660/2009. Also heard Shri J. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, KAAC, Shri M.K. Boro, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 9, 14, 29, 37, 44, 47, 48, 60, 75, 77, 80 & 81, Shri M. Agarwalla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 10, 17, 27, 34, 49, 52, 57, 59, 65, 67, 73 & 78, Shri M. Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 12, 13, 15, 21, 43, 46, 50, 51, 53, 55, 66, 68, 74, 82, 83, 85 & 86, and Shri P. Hazarika, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 22, 24, 28, 31, 42 & 63.

2. Two applicants have preferred this review against the aforesaid judgment as mentioned. The principal ground of review is that a particular point urged in the writ petition was not considered at all while the judgment dated 18.08.2016 was delivered. It is contended that there were a bunch of writ petitions which were disposed of by the common judgment and order dated 18.08.2016.

3. Shri P.K.R. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that a categorical point taken in the writ petition was that in the impugned selection for the posts of Assistant Teacher in the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, reservation was not followed which was in violation of the statute. It has further been contended that in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, the said point instead of being disputed, was, to the contrary admitted. He, therefore, contends that the entire selection was vitiated due to non-following of the reservation policy which is mandatory in nature. He submits that the learned Single Judge while passing the aforesaid judgment did not even consider the aforesaid aspect which was in fact an admitted position. The learned counsel has already drawn the attention of this Court to an order dated 10.02.2017 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in Writ Appeal 38/2017 whereby a liberty was given to the appellants in that case to prefer a review.

4. Shri Roy Choudhury, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that when a point of law was urged and was not considered in spite of the point being conceded by the contesting respondents, the judgment in question is liable to be reviewed in the interest of justice.

5. Refuting the aforesaid submissions, Shri J. Chutia, the learned Standing Counsel, KAAC has submitted that the present application for review is not maintainable for more than one reason. By drawing the attention of this Court to the review petition, he submits that though the judgment dated 18.08.2016 was a common judgment, the review was sought for only in respect of WP(C)/5660/2009 in which the applicant no. 1-Longsing Terang was not even a petitioner. He submits that so far as the applicant no. 2 is concerned namely, Shri Tapan Khemprai, though he was a petitioner in WP(C)/5660/2009, there is no statement that the applicant no. 2 belonged to the Scheduled Tribe category.

6. By drawing the attention of this Court to the pleadings made in paragraph nos. 27 & 28 of the writ petition, Shri Chutia, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that only a general statement has been made regarding the application of the Reservation Act and the Rules.

7. Shri Chutia, the learned Standing Counsel further submits that even overlooking the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the appointment order dated 27.11.2009 which was annexed to the writ petition would show that 17 persons were appointed against the 17 numbers of vacancies which were in order of merit. To buttress his argument, attention of this Court has also been drawn to the Select List prepared, in which the position of the application no. 2 was 35 and there were a number of persons in the ST category above the petitioners who were also not appointed. He submits that in any case, the reservation being only 5