JUDGMENT :

W. Diengdoh, J.

1. Judgment and Order dated 20.06.2023 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 114 of 2015 in the case of Smti. Sonia Sultana Sarker v. The State of Meghalaya and Ors. is sought to be reviewed by this instant review petition preferred by Smti Jesmin Jahir, the respondent No. 9 therein.

2. In this petition, the review petitioner has narrated the background story of the case to say that on 06.01.2015, an advertisement was brought out in the local newspaper, “The Shillong Times” issued by the Secretary, Rajabala Higher Secondary School, West Garo Hills District inviting applications for filing up the post of Asstt. Teacher (Arts) in the said school.

3. The review petitioner along with others had accordingly responded to the said advertisement and was made to appear in the interview consisting of written test as well as viva voce. She was eventually declared successful in the process and was thereafter appointed to the post with the condition that she is to acquire the requisite qualification of having a B.Ed degree within three years of her appointment, which she did so when she attained the B.Ed degree in the year 2017 and continued to work as the Asstt. Teacher for another five months.

4. In the meantime, the respondent No. 7 herein has approached this Court with the said writ petition being WP(C) No. 114 of 2015 challenging the appointment of the review petitioner and also seeking appointment in her place.

5. This Court after hearing the parties, has vide judgment dated 20.06.2023, set at nought the said advertisement dated 06.01.2015 and has consequently quashed the appointment of the review petitioner.

6. Mr. S. Jindal, learned counsel for the review petitioner has submitted that the records would show that the respondent No. 7 herein who is the writ petitioner in the related proceedings before this Court, has at no point of time made any averment as regard the said advertisement dated 06.01.2015, except a very vague mention of the same at para 10 of the petition.

7. Again, the learned counsel has submitted that on perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition of the State respondents as well as the affidavit of the review petitioner as respondent No. 9 in the writ proceedings also revealed that there was no reference made to the said advertisement dated 06.01.2015. Even in the rejoinder to the affidavit filed by this review petitioner in the said writ petition, the writ petitioner/respondent No. 7 herein has not made any pleadings as regard the said advertisement. The fact is that the said advertisement was never in question before this court in such proceedings, submits the learned counsel.

8. The learned counsel has further submitted that the said advertisement not being put to challenge before this Court, the parties, including the review petitioner herein was at a disadvantage as far as response to the same is concerned and as such, this Court by setting aside the appointment of the review petitioner, such appointment being made pursuant to the selection process initiated by the issuance of the said advertisement, therefore, there has occurred a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.

9. To buttress his contention on the issue of absence of pleadings without which the court could not have come to the conclusion and finding manifested in the impugned judgment, the learned counsel has cited the case of Akella Lalitha v. Konda Hanumantha Rao & Anr., 2022 SCC Online SC 928, para 16 and 17 which reads as follows:

“16. Coming to address the second issue, while this Court is not apathetic to the predicament of the Respondent grandparents, it is a fact that absolutely no relief was ever sought by them for the change of surname of the child to that of first husband/son of respondents. It is settled law that relief not found on pleadings should not be granted. If a Court considers or grants a relief for which no prayer or pleading was made depriving the respondent of an opportunity to oppose or resist such relief,