IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Review Petition No.3 of 2025 Decided on: 10th January, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Kaushalya Devi ....Petitioner Versus HPU & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Varun Thakur and Mr. Aakash Thakur, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents-HPU. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner seeks review of decision rendered on 10.06.2024 in CWP No. 271 of 2024, whereby her writ petition was dismissed. 2. The only ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioner as also pleaded in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the present petition for seeking review of the aforesaid judgment is that:- Respondent No.3 had received relaxation and 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - other benefits as Scheduled Caste candidate for qualifying the UGC-NET examination, having exceeded the age of 30 years at the time of application; Respondent No.4 received fee relaxation and was selected from an extended zone despite scoring only 94% marks for JRF; Respondent No.5 also benefited from the extended zone of selection, scoring 31% marks for the UGC-NET and JRF exams. During selection process, respondents No. 1 and 2 admitted respondents No.3 to 5 for the seats meant for general category based upon their merit in the PG examination, but this was done without considering the fact that these respondents had passed their JRF/UGC-NET exam after availing relaxed standards, which made them ineligible for selection as General Category candidates for admission to Ph.D. Programme in Department of Political Science. 3. Above contentions of the petitioner have already been noticed in paragraph-3 of the judgment and were duly delved upon in para-4 of the decision. Furthermore, in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner had confined his submissions only against writ respondent No.3, whereas, in the present review petition, factual submissions have been - 3 - made against respondents No.4 and 5 as well. Be that as it may. 4. The contention being urged has already been duly considered in the decision sought to reviewed. The petitioner is only trying to re-litigate and re-agitate the case, which cannot be permitted. In view of above, there is no merit in the present review petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge January 10, 2025 R.Atal