The court emphasized that a litigant cannot be permitted to take inconsistent, contradictory & shifting stands in the same case at his whims & fancies and cannot file successive review petitions for repetitively urging a point which was given up earlier.

JUDGMENT :

JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J.

1. This petition seeking review of the judgment passed on 17.11.2022 in LPA No. 517 of 2012 is barred by 207 days.

2. Background/facts:

(i) Respondent No. 1 was the writ petitioner. His writ petition being CWP(T) No. 16150 of 2008 was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 04.11.2011. The review petitioner was directed to take over respondent No. 1’s services as a Lecturer (College Cadre) in the subject of Economics w.e.f. 14.09.2006 with all consequential benefits.

(ii) LPA No 517 of 2012 was preferred by the review petitioner against the aforesaid judgment. The appeal was disposed of on 30.10.2018 alongwith other connected matters with certain modifications in the relief allowed to respondent No. 1.

(iii) The State (present review petitioner) filed review petition No. 101 of 2019 seeking review of the judgment passed on 30.10.2018 in LPA No. 517 of 2012. The sole ground was that respondent No. 1 (writ petitioner) did not possess educational qualification required under the R&P Rules, hence was not entitled to the relief granted to him. In view of the ground urged, review was allowed on 20.08.2021 and consequently LPA No. 517 of 2012 was restored to its original number.

(iv) The LPA, after its restoration, was taken up for hearing on 17.12.2022 when it was submitted by the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State (present review petitioner) that the respondent(original writ petitioner) in fact possessed the required qualification for the post of college Lecturer. Taking note of the submissions made for the State, the LPA was disposed of on 17.11.2022 with directions to the review petitioner to implement the judgment dated 30.10.2018 passed in LPA No. 387 of 2012 alongwith other connected cases, including LPA No. 517 of 2012 and release admissible benefits in terms thereof to the respondent (writ petitioner) within a period of four weeks. Cost of Rs. 20,000/- was also imposed upon the review petitioner payable to respondent No. 1. The judgment dated 17.11.2022 which is now being sought to be reviewed, is extracted hereinafter:

“The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in the subject of Economics in DAV College, Daulatpur Chowk on adhoc basis on 19.07.2000. After his suitability to the post was adjudged by a duly constituted selection committee, his services were regularized on 18.01.2005. The Himachal Pradesh University also approved his appointment. The college was taken over by the State on 14.09.2006. Vide notification dated 04.01.2007, services of its staff were also taken over. The service of the petitioner, however, was not taken over on the ground that his salary was paid out of Self Financing Scheme.

2. Aggrieved, petitioner preferred CWP(T) No. 16150/2008. This writ petition was decided by the learned Single Judge on 04.11.2011. It was held that the lecturers appointed in the college in question constituted a homogeneous class and there could not be any invidious discrimination amongst them only on the basis of mode of payment of salary. The writ petition was accordingly allowed alongwith two other connected writ petitions. The respondents were directed to take over the services of the petitioner as Lecturer (College Cadre) in the subject of Economics w.e.f. 14.09.2006 alongwith all consequential benefits.

3. The State filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 517 of 2012 against the aforesaid judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. This appeal was heard alongwith eleven other appeals, involving same issue and similar judgments. LPA No. 517 of 2012 was decided on 30.10.2018 alongwith this bunch of eleven other appeals, with lead case LPA No. 387 of 2012. The Division Bench held that the mode of payment of salary will not have any significance in respect of taking over of services of the writ petitioners; that the issue had rightly been determined by the learned Single Judge in favour of the teachers; the Bench observed that it is beyond the reach of a teacher to ascertain as to whether the salar