1 2025:CGHC:27767 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 148 of 2025 1 - Bhupendra Chauriya S/o Vijay Chauriya Aged About 31 Years Pesently Working As Assistant Fisheries Officer In The Office Of Assistant Director Of Fisheries, Kondagaon District - Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Fisheries Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar , District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Fisheries Indrawati Bhawan, 4th Floor - Block Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Jageshwar Prasad Sahu S/o Late I.R. Sahu Aged About 47 Years Presently Workinga In The Office Of Deputy Director Fisheries Raipur And Residing At House No. 2b/ 425, Near Krishna Public School, Sector 27, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C. J. K. Rao, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. M. Asha, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Smt. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 25.06.2025 2 1. Heard. 2. This review petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC being aggrieved by the order dated 22.01.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed in Writ Petition (S) No.7821 of 2024 (Jageshwar Prasad Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.) whereby this Court disposed of the writ petition with a directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner therein in the light of the letter dated 15.01.2025 within the period of 45 days from the production of copy of this order, the present petitioner herein filed this instant review petition. 3. The present petitioner herein, namely, Bhupendra Chauriya who is not a party in the writ petition, has preferred this review petition. 4. Learned counsel for the review petitioner respectfully submits that the letter dated 15.01.2025, insofar as it grants seniority to the petitioner/respondent no.3 with effect from 07.08.2014, is patently contrary to the observations and directions issued by the Hon’ble Division Bench. It is significant to note that in the original writ petition, the petitioner/respondent No.3 merely sought consideration for appointment to the vacant post of Assistant Fisheries Officer and did not claim any relief seeking retrospective seniority. Despite this, the impugned letter not only exceeds the scope of the relief sought and granted, but also accords seniority to petitioner/respondent No.3 below those Assistant Fisheries 3 Officers who were appointed on 07.08.2014, even though he was not borne in the cadre on that date. It is a settled position in law that retrospective seniority cannot be granted to an employee from a date when he was not part of the cadre, particularly where such grant adversely affects the vested rights of other employees. This principle has been authoritatively laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bihar State Electricity Board and Others v. Dharamdeo Das, 1 . The Hon’ble Division Bench, in WA No. 616 of 2024, vide order dated 24.01.2025, has also upheld this position and did not permit retrospective seniority in similar circumstances. In view of the above, the issuance of the letter dated 15.01.2025 by the respondent/State is in the teeth of the binding judicial pronouncements and constitutes a violation of the express mandate of the Hon’ble Division Bench. The Review Petitioner, therefore, humbly prays that the impugned action of the respondent/State, to the extent it grants retrospective seniority to petitioner/respondent no.3, be reviewed and set aside, in the interest of justice and to prevent manifest illegality. 5. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and supported the order impugned herein. 6. I have heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1768 4 7. Upon perusal of the record and submissions, it is observed that the petitioner in the present review petition was not a party to the original petition/order sought to be reviewed. It is a settled legal principle that a party who was not before the court in the original proceedings cannot seek review of the order passed therein. The scope of a review petition is confined to the parties to the original proceedings and cannot be extended to non-parties. 8. Since the petitioner was not impleaded nor represented in the original petition/order, the petitioner does not have the locus standi to file the present review petition. Consequently, the review petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 9. Resultantly, the review petition is hereby dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of the petitioner in the original petition. Certified Copy as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh/Saxena ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA