Sanjeev Kumar ORDER
Sanjeev Kumar, J.
1. This order shall dispose of the application filed by applicant seeking review of the judgment dated 02.07.2018 passed by this Court in SWP No. 1029/2015.
2. The writ petition SWP No. 1029/2015 was allowed by this Court on 02.07.2018 holding the promotion granted in favour of the applicant-respondent No. 2 as Reader by virtue of order dated 27.07.2009, impugned in the writ petition, not justified in law. This Court also quashed the promotion of the applicant as Reader granted by the High Court vide its order dated 27.07.2009. It may be noted that in paragraph No. 39, in place of "Reader" the "Bench Secretary" has been written due to typographical error. Non-applicant No. 1 has moved a separate application seeking correction of the aforesaid clerical error which shall be dealt with separately.
3. Mr. R.A. Jan, learned senior Advocate, appearing for the applicant, while elaborating the grounds on which the review is sought submits that the judgment sought to be reviewed is vitiated due to several errors apparent on the face of record. It is submitted that under Rule 6 of the High Court Staff (Condition of Services) Rules, 1968, the Chief Justice is empowered to lay down the qualification of a member of service and determine the mode of recruitment and in exercise of aforesaid power the Chief Justice of this Court vide order dated 27.03.2007 had approved the waiting-list for the post of Reader indicating the name of the applicant, as prepared by the Selection Committee. He also contends that as per the approval granted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, the wait list was to remain in force for a period of one year w.e.f. 01.04.2007. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel that since three vacancies of Reader became available during the currency of the wait list and therefore, the applicant being the only candidate in the wait list was considered, though belatedly, with the approval of Hon'ble the Chief Justice. It is, thus, submitted that the order dated 27.07.2009, whereby the applicant was appointed as Reader, was in consonance with law. It is next contended by the learned senior counsel that in law a selection body is competent to initiate process of selection for existing as well as anticipated vacancies and that the wait list, if legitimately prepared, could be utilized to fill up such anticipated vacancies which may fall vacant during the currency of the life of the wait list.
4. Learned senior counsel has broadly emphasized upon the aforesaid grounds and urged that this Court while deciding the writ petition vide judgment dated 02.07.2018 committed an error apparent on the face of record and quashed the selection of the applicant which was otherwise in consonance with law now fairly settled by the Supreme Court.
5. Having heard learned senior counsel for the applicant and perused the record, it would be appropriate for us to first deal with the argument of the learned senior counsel that the power of review vested in the Constitutional Courts is all pervasive and would be available to correct all mistakes. To buttress his submission, learned senior counsel relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Board of Control For Cricket, India v. Netaji Cricket Club; MANU/SC/0019/2005 : 2005(4) SCC 741. It is trite that scope of an application for review is much more restricted than that of an appeal. The powers of this Court are not wider than the powers conferred upon the Civil Court by virtue of Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Though, the grounds on which the review can be sought as given in the Code of Civil Procedure are only enumerative and not exhaustive. The term "for any other sufficient reason" is wide ........