HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 173 of 2025 Court No. - 39 HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH, J. 1. The review application is before us since one of the learned Judges in the Bench that delivered judgment/ order dated 1st April, 2025, under review, is no longer available. The review was moved on 3rd September, 2025. Paragraph 2 from order made that day is reproduced below. "2. Mr. Ashok Khare, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of review applicant, whose appeal stood dismissed by said judgement/order dated 1st April, 2025. He submits, there is error apparent in the judgment. His client applied online identifying himself as belonging to category Code-5, whereas it was said, the rejection was made on parameter Code- 2. This is an error, which is apparent. Paragraph 1 of the judgment/order dated 1st April, 2025 is reproduced below. "This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.11.2024, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 15899 of 2021, whereby appellant-petitioner's contention has been negated for treating his candidature in Code-2, inasmuch as the appellant-petitioner in his online application form had claimed his category as Code-5. Code-2 is in respect of Shiksha Mitra to which the appellant-petitioner belongs. Code-5 is not in respect of Shiksha Mitra. Since the process of recruitment was online, learned Single Judge has placed reliance upon an earlier judgment of this Court in Vijay Singh and another vs. State of U.P. and others rendered in Writ-A No.31509 of 2021 to non-suit the appellant- petitioner." (emphasis supplied)" Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anand Kr Srivastava, Pratibha Asthana, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Archana Singh, C.S.C., Shruti Malviya Govind Singh .....Applicant(s) State Of Up And 5 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 2. Today, on query Mr. Khare submits, challenge in the writ petition was against point no.20 in order dated 18th January, 2021 issued by respondent no.3 (Director General, School Education and State Project). He draws attention to said order and point no.20 therein. He submits, thereby was put a cap on consideration of weightage as shikshamitra in favour of those applicants, who had served as such earlier. His client seeking benefit of the weightage had challenged the restriction imposed thereby. 3. Mr. G.C. Tiwari, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State. Ms. Archana Singh, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent no.2 and Ms. Shruti Malviya, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent no.6. On query Ms. Singh is unable to demonstrate link in the appellate order under review, with petitioner's prayer in the writ petition. 4. The learned single Judge appears to have had gone against petitioner by finding him to have made erroneous entry in respect of applicable code. In the intra-Court appeal, by the judgment/ order under review, said judgment was confirmed. Petitioner's case in the writ petition appears to be, he is carrying qualification covered by code 5, but seeks weighatage of having served as shikshamitra, whose qualification is covered by code 2. There is indication in the judgments of the first Court and the appellate Court that, petitioners' prayer was, in effect, rejected by finding mistake. As such, there is error apparent in the judgment/ order under review. 5. The review is allowed. Judgment/ order dated 1st April, 2025 is recalled. The appeal stands restored to file and number for hearing afresh by the Bench having nomination. 6. The connected appeals standing connected to the appeal disposed of by the order reviewed, necessarily need to be released from the list, also for listing and adjudication by the Bench having nomination. (Arindam Sinha,J.) (Donadi Ramesh,J.) September 9, 2025 Gurpreet Singh CMRA No. 173 of 2025 2 Digitally signed by :- GURPREET SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad