2025:HHC:5744 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Review Petition No.316 of 2022 Decided on: 11.03.2025 The Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur …. Petitioner Versus Pinki Bagga & others …. Respondents The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting1 :Yes. For the Petitioner: Ms. Suchitra Sen, Advocate. For Respondents: Respondent No.1 exparte vide order dated 04.10.2023. Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State. Vivek Singh Thakur, J (oral) Petitioner has filed this review petition on the ground that order dated 20.04.2022 passed in CWP No.8181 of 2021 is liable to be reviewed in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Merri Chandra Shekhar Rao versus Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College and others, reported in (1990) 3 Supreme Court Cases 130, Ranjana Kumari vs. State of Uttarakhand and other, (2019) 15 Supreme Court Cases 664 and judgment dated 19.05.2022 passed in CWP No.8043 of 2021, titled as Subeena Sabri vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others by Division Bench of this High Court. 2. It is not the case of the petitioner that judgment in Merri Chandra case was cited during hearing of writ petition. Moreover, facts in the said case were not similar to the present case. In that case petitioner was claiming benefit of Scheduled Tribe status in 1 Whether Reporters of local newspaper are permitted to see the judgment ? 2025:HHC:5744 Maharashtra on the basis of his status in Andhra Pradesh by relying upon Scheduled Tribe certificate issued in State of Andhra Pradesh. In present case, caste of Pinki Bagga is notified Scheduled Caste in Punjab as well as in Himachal Pradesh. 3. Judgment in Ranjana Kumari’s case has been duly considered by the Division Bench of this Court in para No.5 of the impugned order. 4. Judgment in Subeena Sabri case has been passed subsequent to the impugned order passed in the present case as the impugned order was passed on 20.04.2022, whereas Subeena Sabri case was decided on 19th May 2022. Subsequent judgments cannot be a valid ground for reviewing the order or judgment. 5. It is also apt to record that judgment impugned herein has been passed earlier to decision in Subeena Sabri case, but it appears that it was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench, which decided Subeena Sabri’s case. 6. No other point urged or raised. 7. In view of the above, we do not find any irregularity, illegality or perversity error apparent face of record warranting the review of the impugned order, accordingly, present petition is dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge (Sandeep Sharma) March 11,2025 Judge (shankar)