JUDGMENT :

SUMEET GOEL, J.

By way of review application bearing No.RA-CW-588-2025 (hereinafter referred to as ‘application in hand’) seeking review of the final order of judgment dated 28.02.2025 passed in CWP-4917-2025, the review-applicant/petitioner has implored this Court to review the aforesaid final order/judgment, whereby, the said writ petition preferred by her, was dismissed. Along-with application in hand, an application, i.e., CM-19192-CWP-2025 (hereinafter referred to as ‘delay condonation application’) seeking condonation of 260 days delay has also been preferred.

2. Shorn of non-essential details, the relevant factual matrix of the lis in hand is adumbrated thus:

i) The writ petition (CWP-4917-2025) was filed by the review-applicant/petitioner with the following substantive prayer:

“i. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus declaring Clause 33 of the Advertisement (Anneure P-1) to be ultra vires of the Constitution of India;

ii. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus to the Respondent No.2 and 3 to produce the Answer Sheet of English Paper IV of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination – 2023-24 of the Petitioner bearing Roll Number 1973;

iii. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 and 3 to ensure that Question No.2(x) of English Paper IV, as attempted by the Writ Petitioner, is to evaluated again by some other Examiner;

iv. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 and 3 to consider the response as answered by the Petitioner for Question No.2(x) as correct and award her 2.5 marks in the aforesaid question and to declare the Petitioner as a successful candidate for the final selection in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination – 2023-24;”

ii) Vide the final order/ judgment dated 28.02.2025, this Court had dismissed the writ petition preferred by the review-applicant/petitioner.

iii) Raising grievance against the final order/ judgment dated 28.02.2025, the review-applicant/petitioner has preferred the application in hand seeking review of the order/ judgment ibid.

iv) It is in this factual backdrop, the application in hand has come up for adjudication before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the review-applicant/ petitioner has argued that this Court, while passing the final order/ judgment dated 28.02.2025 in CWP-4917-2025, has not considered that in similar like circumstances, this Court had earlier granted direction(s) for re-evaluation of the answer given by another person in a separate writ petition. Learned counsel has, in essence, iterated that this Court ought to have directed for re-evaluation of the answer given by the review-applicant/ petitioner to Question No.2(x). Learned counsel has iterated that interest of justice demands that this Court, by way of exercising its power under review jurisdiction, ought to grant an opportunity to the review-applicant/petitioner for re-evaluation of her answer to the above question which, in fact, would make her eligible by achieving the requisite threshold. Learned counsel has further iterated that the non-applicants- respondents were duty bound for adopting a fair and transparent process in conducting of a competitive examination or evaluation of answer sheets and denial thereof is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus, grant of application in hand is entreated for.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for non-applicant-respondent No.2 has opposed the application in hand by primarily arguing that application in hand, actually, amounts to recalling of the final order/ judgment dated 28.02.2025, which has been passed considering the entire factual milieu of the case and plea made in the application in hand is beyond the scope, nature and extent of review jurisdiction as enshrined in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Learned counsel has, thus, sought for dismissal of the application in hand along with delay condonatio