A review petition must demonstrate new evidence or sufficient reason for reconsideration; failure to do so results in dismissal.

JUDGMENT :

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.

1. Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel for the review petitioner assisted by Mr. R. Sarma. Also heard Mr. S.K. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. The review petitioner has put to challenge the impugned judgment and order dated 26.09.2023 passed in WP (C) No. 4451/2022, by which this Court has set aside the appointment of the review petitioner to the post of Gaon Pradhan of Sanpara Parbat Village, as he was found ineligible to have participated in the selection process, due to him being in a political party at the time of the selection process. Further, this Court had also found that the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner, who was the son of the earlier Gaon Pradhan, had not been given marks at the time of interview in terms of Clause-G of the Advertisement dated 01.12.2021.

3. The facts of the case in brief is that the review petitioner and the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner had participated in the selection process for appointment as Gaon Pradhan. The review petitioner was selected as Gaon Pradhan of Sanpara Parbat Village on culmination of the selection process.

4. The respondent No. 1/writ petitioner made a challenge to the appointment of the review petitioner vide WP (C) No. 4451/2022, on the ground that the review petitioner being a member of a political party at the time of his selection as Gaon Pradhan, he could not have been selected as Gaon Pradhan under Clause C(3) of the advertisement. The respondent No. 1 had also taken a stand that the respondent No. 1 should have been awarded marks, being a family member of the earlier Gaon Pradhan, in terms of Clause-G of the Advertisement dated 01.12.2021, which was not done. The other grounds taken in the writ petition by the respondent No. 1, while challenging the selection of the review petitioner, was that the review petitioner was not a resident of Sanpara Parbat Village and that preference was to be given to the family member of the Gaon Pradhan for appointment to the post of Gaon Pradhan.

5. This Court, vide judgment and order dated 26.09.2023 passed in WP (C) No. 4451/2022, held that the respondent No. 1 being the son of the earlier Gaon Pradhan, it was incumbent on the part of the State respondents to have considered giving marks to the petitioner at the time of interview, in terms of Clause G of the advertisement. Further, as the review petitioner was found to have resigned from the membership of the Gaon Panchayat only and as he had not resigned from the political party he belonged to, at the time of his selection as a Gaon Pradhan, the selection of the review petitioner as Gaon Pradhan was found to be illegal and was set aside.

6. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the review petitioner had resigned from the political party vide letter dated 25.11.2021 and the review petitioner had been released from the primary membership of the said political party on 25.11.2021. However, the review petitioner could not produce the said documents at the time of disposal of the writ petition, as he had misplaced the said letter. It was only in the last week of October, 2023 that the review petitioner found the said resignation letter dated 25.11.2021, while searching for some other documents in his personal file.

7. The learned Sr. Counsel for the review petitioner further submits that as per the information provided to the review petitioner vide letter dated 30.09.2023 and the annexures therein by the Addl. District Commissioner, Kamrup, in reply to the information sought for by the review petitioner under the RTI Act, 2005, the final evaluation sheet signed by all the three members of the Selection Committee and the individual evaluation sheets made by the individual members of the Selection Committee, showed that the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner had been allotted 10 out of 10 marks by all the members at the time of interview, for