Point of Law: Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as application for review of judgment.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

CMP(M) Nos. 411 of 2023 & 521 of 2023

Delay condoned. The applications stand disposed of.

Review Petitions be registered.

Review Petition Nos.69 of 2023 & 70 of 2023.

Heard.

2. Both these petitions have been heard and are being decided together as common questions of facts and law are involved.

3. The Government of Himachal Pradesh has framed and notified a policy “Part Time Multi Task Worker Policy, 2020” (for short “Policy”) for the appointment of Part Time Multi Task Workers in the Government Schools of Himachal Pradesh under Higher and Elementary Education Department. As per Clause 7 (iv) of the Policy, 8 (eight) marks are allocated for candidates whose families have donated land for school.

4. Petitioners herein were also applicants for the posts of Part Time Multi Task Workers in their respective areas. They remained unsuccessful as were not awarded any marks on account of being family members of land donors.

5. Initially, at the time of formulation of policy, the term “family” was not defined. Later, a clarification was issued on 24.05.2022 whereby the term “family” for the purposes of Clause 7 (iv) of the Policy, was restricted to mean only “Land Donor or His/Her Spouse and their Children”.

6. Admittedly, petitioners were neither the land owners themselves nor were falling in the category of spouse or children of the land donor. Petitioner Surender Singh had assailed the validity of Clause 7(iv) of the Policy as also his rejection by way of CWP No.4139 of 2022. His contention was rejected vide judgment passed by this Court on 28.06.2022. Petitioner Surender Singh assailed the above noted judgment passed by this Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 33066 of 2022, but remained unsuccessful. His petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 28.02.2023 in following terms:

“Delay condoned.

We do not see any valid reason to interfere with the impugned orders and hence, the special leave petitions are dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

7. Petitioner Balbir Singh had also assailed the validity of Clause 7 (iv) of the Policy as also his rejection by way of CWP No.4169 of 2022 before this Court. His contention was also rejected by this Court vide judgment dated 29.06.2022.

8. In both the above noted cases, the amendment made in the definition of term “family” in the Policy vide Clause 7 (iv), was upheld.

9. The petitioners have sought the review of above noted judgments passed in CWP No. 4139 of 2022 and CWP No. 4169 of 2022 on the grounds that the restrictive meaning given to the term “family” in the Policy is arbitrary and discriminatory. It is submitted that the definition of “family” in the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and the H. P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, which provides expansive meaning to the term “family” has not been considered. It is also submitted that in the same policy, the definition of “family”, for the persons living in extreme indigent condition is different with larger connotation, therefore, the term “family” for the purposes of Clause 7 (iv) of the Policy, cannot also be given a restrictive meaning. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment dated 06.03.2020 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in LPA No. 40 of 2019, titled Sudama Nand vs. State of H.P. and others, wherein, according to petitioners, the extended scope of term “family” was considered by placing reliance on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.V. Muthu vs. Angamuthu Ammal, reported in (1997) 2 SCC 53.

10. In order to justify the maintainability of the review petition after dismissal of SLP(Civil) No. 33066 of 2022 in the case of petitioner Surender Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Civil Appeal No. 2432 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 490 of 2012), titled Khoday Distilleries Ltd. vs. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahaka