Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 3]

Patna High Court

Surendra Kumar Pandey vs The Union Of India & Ors on 26 July, 2016

Author: Navaniti Prasad Singh

Bench: Navaniti Prasad Singh, Nilu Agrawal

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                          Civil Review No 58 of 2015
                                        IN
                Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 8182 of 2013
===========================================================
Surendra Kumar Pandey. Son of Shri Parmanand Pandey. Resident of village &
P.O. - Karma Borwa, Via - Jhajha, P.S. - Jhajha, Dist.- Jamui.

                                                              .... .... Petitioner/s
                                      Versus
1. The Union of India through Chief Post Master General, Bihar Circle, Patna.
2. The Chief Post Master General, Bihar Circle, Patna.
3. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Munger Division, Munger.
4. Smt. Urmila Kumari. Wife of Shri Kamdeo Prasad Barnwal. Resident of village
& P.O.- Karma Borwa, Via - Jhajha, P.S.- Jhajha, Dist.- Jamui, ex EDBPM, Karma
Borwa EDBO in account with Jhajha S.O. in Munger Postal Division.

                                                  .... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr Amar Nath Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr Sanjay Kumar, ASG
===========================================================
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH
                                      And
                HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT NILU AGRAWAL

                              ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH) Date: 26-07-2016 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for Union of India.

2 This review application is thoroughly misconceived. The review applicant was respondent No 4 and was fully heard when the writ petition was disposed of noticing that the review applicant (respondent No 4 in the writ petition) had more marks than the writ petitioner (respondent No 4 in this review application) but considering the other parameters, writ petitioner was selected which selection Patna High Court C. REV. No.58 of 2015 dt.26-07-2016 2 cannot be termed as illegal in any manner. Respondent No 4 (the review applicant) wants rehearing the writ petition which is not permissible.

3 This review application is thoroughly misconceived and is dismissed accordingly.




                                                 (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)


M.E.H./-                                               (Nilu Agrawal, J)

 U