A review petition is not maintainable if filed significantly beyond the stipulated period, lacking sufficient grounds or diligence, especially post-appeal confirmation of prior judgments.

JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

1. Heard Ms. D. Musahary, learned standing counsel, Education (Secondary) Department, appearing for the review petitioners. Also heard Mr. M. Chanda, learned counsel for the opposite party/respondent No.1.

2. This review petition is preferred by the petitioners: (1) State of Assam, represented by the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Department of School Education, Dispur; (2) The Director of Secondary Education, Assam, Kahilipara and (3) The Inspector of Schools, Kamrup District Circle, KDC, Guwahati, under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, read with Chapter X of the Gauhati High Court Rules praying for review of the order, dated 28.11.2018, passed by this Court in WP(C) No.5914/2014.

3. Notably, vide order dated 28.11.2018, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had held as under:-

“15. In view of the above, the judgment and order dated 31.08.2016 in WP(C) 4053/2013 would hold its force and the provision thereof that for the purpose of provincialislation of Assistant Teacher Science the basis would be seniority and not the subject combination would also have to be followed. In the event, the said proposition is followed, the petitioner is senior to the respondent No.6 in the manner as indicated above. It being so, the Court is of the view that the order of provincialistion, provincialising the service of the respondent No.6 would have to be declared to be contrary to the requirement of Section 4 of the Act of 2011. Having declared so, it is directed that the Director of Secondary Education, Assam would pass necessary order thereto by taking into consideration that the petitioner is senior to the respondent No.6 and being senior, the provision of Section 4 of the Act of 2011 would be applicable in favour of the petitioner. In doing so, the Director shall follow necessary procedure under the law as required.

16. While dealing with the respondent No.6, it is further provided that in the event, the provincialisation of the respondent No.6 is withdrawn, the benefits that had already been accrued to him shall not be recalled and further the case of the respondent No.6 be again considered under the provision of Section 13(6) of the Act of 2017.

17. Writ petition is allowed to the above extent.”

4. The background facts, leading to filing of the present review petition, are briefly stated as under:-

“The opposite party/respondent No.1, had instituted a writ proceeding, being W.P(C) No.5914/2014, for issuance of direction to the respondent authorities to provincialise her service in the post of Assistant Teacher (Science) in Sabitri Bharali High School, Odalbakra, Guwahati, by setting aside the impugned order dated 22.09.2014, by which the service of respondent No.6 therein, namely, Kishore Kumar Deka was provincialised in the said school.

The aforesaid W.P(C) No. 5914/2014, was allowed vide Judgment and Order dated 28.11.2018, providing that the provincialization of service of Kishore Kumar Deka is contrary to the requirement of Section 4 of the Assam Venture Educational Institution (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011 (‘Act of 2011’, for short) and accordingly, the Director of Secondary Education, Assam was directed to pass necessary order taking into consideration that the opposite party/writ petitioner is senior to the respondent No.6, as per the provision of Section 4 of the Act of 2011, and after following necessary procedure under the law as required.

In compliance of order dated 28.11.2018, passed by this Co