Punjab-Haryana High Court
Devender Sachdev And Others vs Kurukshetra University on 31 January, 2013
Bench: A.K. Sikri, Rakesh Kumar Jain
Review Petition No.5 of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Review Petition No.5 of 2013 (O & M) in
Letter Patent Appeal No.1352 of 2012
Date of decision:-31.01.2013
Devender Sachdev and others
...Appellants
Versus
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others
...Applicants-Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. CHIEF JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present:- Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate for the applicants-respondents No.4 to 30, 32 to 35, 37 to 51.
A.K.SIKRI CJ.
C.M.No.349 of 2013 For the reasons set out in the application, same is allowed and the delay of 75 days in filing the review application is condoned.
C.M.No.350 of 2013
Application is allowed as prayed for.
Review Petition No.5 of 2013 -2-Review Petition No.5 of 2013 The applicants in this review petition were the private respondents in the appeal preferred by the appellants, which has been decided on 10.10.2012. It is stated that the said appeal was decided without sending any notice to the applicants and on this ground the review of the order is sought. The submission of Mr. Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the applicants is correct to the extent that notice was not issued and the appeal was decided without service upon them. For this reason we have heard Mr. Anurag Goyal on merits of the case as well.
It may be recounted that the appellants had filed the writ petition challenging the re-assignment of seniority on the basis of Government notification dated 16.3.2006 as well as the resolution of the respondent-University adopting the said notification and acting thereupon. The contention of the appellants was that the notification dated 16.3.2006 was issued on the basis of judgment of the Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj and others v. Union of India and others (2006) 8 Supreme Court Cases 212, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court upholding the validity of 85th amendment of the Constitution held that in each individual case, the Court will have to examine and decide the matter in accordance with law. It was further held that the amendment to Article 16 and 335 vide 85th amendment is only the enabling provision and in each case the Court has got to Review Petition No.5 of 2013 -3- be satisfied that State has exercised its discretion properly, for which State concerned will have to place before Court the requisite quantifiable data in each case and satisfy the Court that the reservations became necessary on account of inadequacy of representation of SCs/STs in particular class(es) of posts, without affecting general efficiency of service as mandated under Article 335 of the Constitution. By taking note of the aforesaid judgment in our order dated 10.10.2012 we also took note of another this Court's Single Bench order dated 07.8.2012 passed in CWP No.17280 of 2011 setting aside that very notification dated 16.03.2006. This Court, thus, simply observe that since the notification has already been set aside and has become inoperative in so far as State of Haryana is concerned, it is not necessary to adjudicate upon the same notification and the appeal was disposed of making these observations.
Mr. Goyal does not quarrel with the aforesaid observations passed in the judgment of the Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj and others' case (supra). However, his submission is that the Government is now going ahead with the preparation of the seniority list relegating the applicants to revert from the post to which they were promoted. Reference to the judgment passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand in Sri Vinod Prakash Nautiyal and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others in Writ Petition (S/B) No.45 of Review Petition No.5 of 2013 -4- 2011, is made, where according to Mr. Goyal same provision of the Act was also declared as suffering from same vires as pronounced by the Supreme Court in M. Nagaraja and others' case (supra). However, it may not be necessary to go into this issue in the present review petition. As pointed out above, the applicants herein were the private respondents and such a relief could not be granted to the respondents in the matter filed by the appellants. If the Government is taking any steps, which are prejudicial to the interest of the applicants and the applicants are aggrieved thereby, it provides an independent cause of action qua which the applicants to seek appropriate remedy. We make it clear that the grievance raised in this review petition as pointed out above was not the subject matter of the writ petition and therefore, no such findings or observations are made by the Court in the aforesaid order and the same is not required to be reviewed. With the abovesaid observations and granting liberty to the applicants in so far as the review petition is concerned, the same is dismissed.
( A.K. SIKRI )
CHIEF JUSTICE
January 31, 2013 ( RAKESH KUMAR JAIN )
Vijay Asija JUDGE