The main legal point established in the given judgment is the definition of 'person aggrieved' under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the jurisdictional aspect of public interest litigation.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

1. By medium of this petition under Section 114 read-with Order 47 and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, the petitioner has sought review of the judgment passed by this Court on 08.01.2016 in CWP No. 4831 of 2015.

2. The petitioner herein was one of the original applicants in OA No. 3854 of 2015 filed before the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’) and had assailed therein the ‘NOC’ granted to respondents No. 3 to 8 herein as being arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal and claimed the following reliefs:-

“1. Quash the impugned order Annexure A-3 bearing No. HFW-H(IV) (12)-4/2006-15 (NOC) qua the respondents No. 3 to 8, being arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal.

2. Direct the respondents to withhold sponsorship of respondents No. 3 to 8 for pursuing higher course in MD/MCH at AIIMS, New Delhi.

3. Direct the respondents to follow the guidelines as laid in Annexure A-1. Besides this directing the respondent to widely circulate list of tentative sponsored candidates which only be finalised after affording due opportunity to candidates to object to same.”

3. The Original Application was allowed vide judgment dated 23.12.2015 and it was held that the private respondents No. 3 to 8 did not fulfill the eligibility criteria as laid down in Clause 1.4 of the policy dated 02.04.2013 and accordingly ‘NOC’ granted in their favour was ordered to be quashed.

4. The order passed by the learned Tribunal came to be assailed by respondents No. 3 and 5 before this Court by filing CWP No. 4831 of 2015 wherein the main thrust of their arguments was that the learned Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition which was in the nature of Public Interest Litigation.

5. Though, this petition was vehemently contested, however, this Court vide judgment dated 08.01.2016 upheld the contention of the private respondents and allowed the petition so filed by them by holding that the learned Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the petitioners as they could not be said to be the “persons aggrieved” and, therefore, the petition filed by them being in the nature of Public Interest Litigation in a “service matter” was not maintainable.

6. The review petitioner laid challenge to the aforesaid judgment by filing SLP No. 8982 of 2016 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same was disposed of on the first date of hearing itself in the following terms:-

“Upon hearing counsel the Court made the following

ORDER

The petitioner submits and points out that the case before the High Court was not a Public Interest Litigation; it was a case where the petitioner, along with some others, was actually affected on account of sponsorship of the contesting respondents. The petitioner may point out this aspect before the High Court by way of an application for review of the impugned order.

Subject to the above liberty, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.

However, we make it clear that in case the application, as aforesaid, is filed by the petitioner in the High Court within 30 days from today, the same may not be dismissed on the ground of delay.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of.”

(Underlying supplied by us)

7. It is vehemently argued by Shri Janesh Mahajan, learned counsel for the review petitioner that since the petitioner was directly affected by the grant of ‘NOC’ to the respondent Preyander Thakur in the same stream against the policy framed by the Government, therefore, he was an aggrieved party. It is further averred that this Court should not have confined the judgment to the jurisdictional aspect of the case and should have decided the case on merits, particularly, when the State Government had flouted its own policy for grant of ‘NOC’ and granted the same to the ineligible candidates.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on record.

9. At the outset, it would be noticed that a specific contention w