IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Review Petition No.121 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Himachal Pradesh Rajya Chayan Aayog ……...Review Petitioner Versus Veda Jyoti Rajta and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. V.B. Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for respondents No. 2 and 3. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) CMP.M No.2230 of 2025 By way of instant application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, prayer has been made by the applicant- review petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the accompanying review petition. 2. Having carefully perused explanation rendered in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, this Court is 2 convinced and satisfied that delay in maintaining the accompanying review petition is neither intentional nor deliberate, rather same has occurred on account of circumstances which were completely beyond the control of the applicant and as such, delay in filing the petition, which in my considered view has been sufficiently explained, is condoned. The petition be registered. The application stands disposed of. Review Petition No. 121 of 2025 3. By way of instant review petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner to review the judgment dated 8.10.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 2997 of 2025, titled as Veda Jyoti Rajta v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., in as much as incorrect finding has been recorded in para 12 of the judgment to the effect that candidates figuring at Sr. Nos. 2 to 8 were not eligible as they do not possess requisite qualification in terms of Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the post of Dental Mechanic. 4. Precisely, the case of the review petitioner is that writ petitioners had placed on record application forms of candidates No. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 while laying challenge to their eligibility to the post in question (Post Code 656) and at no point of time, petitioner had challenged the eligibility of the candidate Ms. Bhanu Priya, who is at Sr. No. 5 of the waiting panel. Inadvertently, this Court ignoring the aforesaid fact wrongly 3 proceeded to record in para 12 that candidates figuring at Sr. Nos. 2 to 8 are not eligible in terms of Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the post in question. It is further claimed by the review petitioner that had eligibility of candidate figuring at Sr. No. 5 been correctly appreciated at the time of hearing, neither the court would have recorded that all candidates figuring at Sr. Nos. 2 to 8 of the waiting list are ineligible nor would the court have directed the Aayog to recommend the candidate figuring at Sr. No. 9 without considering the candidate figuring at Sr. No.5 of the waiting list. Factum with regard to eligibility of candidate figuring at Sr. No. 5 Ms. Bhanu Priya, came to the fore when review petitioner initiated process for implementation of direction passed by this Court to recommend candidate figuring at Sr. No. 9 i.e. petitioner in writ petition. Since before considering candidature of the petitioner for the post in question, whose name admittedly figures at Sr. No. 9, candidature of candidate figuring at Sr. No. 5 is also required to be considered, review petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 5. Having carefully perused grounds raised in the petition vis-à- vis judgment sought to be reviewed, this court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the review petitioner that there is error apparent on the face of the record. Though aforesaid factum with regard to eligibility of 4 candidate figuring at Sr. No. 5 was never brought to the notice of this court by either of the parties including the review petitioner at the time of passing of the judgment, but since record of the review petitioner suggests that candidate figuring at Sr. No. 5 of the waiting panel was fully eligible in terms of the Recruitment & Promotion Rules against the post of Dental Mechanic, prayer made by the review petitioner for reviewing the judgment in as much as this Court has wrongly recorded that candidates figuring at Sr. No. 2 to 8 of the waiting panel were not eligible in terms of Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the post of Dental Mechanic, needs to be reviewed. 6. Consequently, in view of the above, it is ordered that finding returned by this Court in judgment sought to be reviewed to the extent that candidates figuring at Sr. Nos. 2 to 8 of the waiting panel were not eligible in terms of Recruitment & Promotion Rules, is reviewed and same is modified to the extent that candidates figuring at Sr. Nos. 2 to 4 and 6 to 8 were not eligible in terms of Recruitment & Promotion Rules. Needless to say, in view of the aforesaid modification ordered to be carried out by this Court, respondent-Commission while doing the needful shall also take note of the fact that candidate figuring at Sr. No. 5 of the waiting panel is also eligible for the post in question and accordingly, she be also considered alongwith petitioners in the main case. Observation made 5 herein above shall also form part and parcel of the main judgment. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of. December 16, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), manjit Judge