Court dismisses review challenging order due to petitioner's failure to meet qualifications & submit documents on time.

The court dismissed the review application challenging the order dated 8.3.2013 in LPA No.47/2013. It held that the decision in Md. Sajjad Ali was not applicable as the petitioner did not meet the necessary qualifications by the specified dates. The court found no discrimination in the consideration of candidates and emphasized the importance of submitting requisite certificates within the stipulated timelines. The review petitioner's failure to meet eligibility criteria led to the dismissal of the review application.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Review of the order dated 8.3.2013 in LPA No.47/2013.
2. Applicability of the decision in the case of Md. Sajjad Ali [2008 (4) JLJR 184].
3. Discrimination in the consideration of similarly placed candidates.
4. Eligibility criteria and submission of requisite certificates.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Review of the order dated 8.3.2013 in LPA No.47/2013:
The review petition was filed to reconsider the order dated 8.3.2013 in LPA No.47/2013. The court noted that a review is permissible on three grounds as per Order 47 Rule 1 CPC: discovery of new and important matter, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason. The court emphasized that an error apparent must be detectable without extensive argument and that review proceedings are not an appeal in disguise.

2. Applicability of the decision in the case of Md. Sajjad Ali [2008 (4) JLJR 184]:
The review petitioner argued that the decision in Md. Sajjad Ali was not properly considered. The court clarified that in Md. Sajjad Ali, the requirement was only the completion of the Teachers Training course, whereas, in the petitioner's case, the requirement included the submission of the passing certificate. The court held that the decision in Md. Sajjad Ali was not applicable to the review petitioner's case as the petitioner did not meet the requisite qualifications by the specified dates.

3. Discrimination in the consideration of similarly placed candidates:
The petitioner claimed discrimination, stating that other candidates who submitted their DPE certificates after the extended date were considered and appointed. The court examined the cases of four candidates and found that they had appeared in the DPE examination in June 2008, prior to the JPSC examination on 10.11.2008. In contrast, the review petitioner appeared for the DPE examination in December 2008, after the JPSC examination. The court concluded that the petitioner's situation was not similar to those candidates and there was no discrimination.

4. Eligibility criteria and submission of requisite certificates:
The court reiterated that as per the corrigendum dated 21.9.2007, candidates needed to submit their Teachers Training certificate within three months of the written test. The review petitioner appeared in the written test on 10.8.2008 but did not submit the DPE certificate by the cut-off date of 10.11.2008 or the extended date of 30.7.2009. The court found that the petitioner was not eligible for appointment as he did not possess the requisite qualifications by the specified dates.

Conclusion:
The court found no error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment dated 8.3.2013 passed in LPA No.47/2013. The new materials presented by the review petitioner did not warrant a review of the order. The review application was dismissed.

---