HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 137/2022 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18382/2011 Nisha Saxena D/o Late Munni Lal, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of 117/q/26, Sharda Nagar Kanpur (U.P.), At Present Residing At 111-A/412, Ashok Nagar, Kanpur (U.P.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Commissioner, College Education Government Rajasthan Shiksha Sankul, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur. 2. The Secretary, J.B. Shah Girls (P.G.), College Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 3. Dr. Manorama Tyagi, Lecturer, S.V. Govt College, Khetri, Near Sdm Court, Neem Ka Thana Road, Khetri, Distt, Jhunjunu, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Saxena with Mr. Bhuvnesh Tiwari and Ms. Neha Swami For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Maloo, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Harsh Pratap Singh Mr. Yash Joshi for Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 25/07/2025 1. By way of filing this review petition, a prayer has been made for reviewing the order dated 08.04.2022 passed by this Court while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18382/2011 submitted by the petitioner and a further direction has been sought to issue directions to the respondents to consider the petitioner to be (2 of 4) [WRW-137/2022] appointed on aided post w.e.f. 01.04.1994 with consequential benefits and the respondent No.2 be directed to send the service record of the petitioner to the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 may be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Senior Lecturer (Psychology) under the Rajasthan Voluntarily Rural Education Service Rules, 2010. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while deciding the writ petition submitted by the petitioner, it was held by this Court that the appointment of the petitioner was not as per the provisions and procedure contained under Rules 26, 27 and 28 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Rules, 1993 (for short, the Rules of 1993’). Counsel submits that the petitioner was never appointed under the aforesaid Rules, rather she was appointed prior to enactment and enforcement of the aforesaid Rules. Counsel submits that the petitioner was appointed on a sanctioned post and her services were terminated by the management and the aforesaid order was assailed by the petitioner before the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal. Counsel submits that the aforesaid termination order was quashed and set-aside and the petitioner was reinstated back in service. Counsel submits that the services of similarly situated persons have been absorbed by the respondents under the Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Service Rules, 2010 (for short, ‘Rules of 2010’) and the case of the petitioner is at par with them, therefore, petitioner is also entitled to get similar treatment. (3 of 4) [WRW-137/2022] 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner was never granted promotion on sanctioned or approved post, hence, the case of the petitioner was not sent for absorption of her services under the Rules of 2010. Counsel submits that the arguments raised by both sides were considered by this Court while deciding writ petition submitted by the petitioner. Counsel submits that scope of the review is limited and the prayer sought for in the instant review petition does not fall within the ambit of review jurisdiction of this Court, hence, the instant review petition is liable to be rejected. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that after perusing the entire material available on record and the appointment order of the petitioner and other persons, whose services were absorbed by the respondents under the Rules of 2010, this Court came on a definite conclusion that the post held by the petitioner was neither aided nor sanctioned or approved by the Government and considering the above factual aspect of the matter, this Court was of the view that the appointment of the petitioner was not as per the provisions and procedure contained under the Rules 26, 27 and 28 of the Rules of 1993, hence, the prayer sought for, was not granted by this Court. 6. The review jurisdiction of this Court is limited. This Court finds no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, which warrants any interference to rewrite the judgment, after taking into account the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner, (4 of 4) [WRW-137/2022] which have already been considered by this Court by passing a detailed order. 7. This Court finds no merit in this review petition, hence, the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KUD/3