Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinod Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 June, 2015
1
R.P. No.258/2015
(Vinod Kumar Sharma
Vs.
The State of M.P. & oths.)
23.06.2015
Shri Mahesh Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Sangeeta Pachauri, Government Advocate for
respondent/State.
The instant review petition seeks review of order dated 26.05.2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 3167/2015(s).
2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that assailing the order under review in W.A. No. 125/2015 passed by Division Bench of this Court. The petitioner was heard by Division Bench which passed the order dated 11.06.2015 (Annexure P-2) by which while dismissing the writ appeal, the petitioner was granted liberty to file present review petition.
4. It is contended that aforesaid liberty was granted in the background of submission made by the petitioner before the Division Bench that writ Court while passing the order under review has wrongly assumed the petitioner to be a Class-II Officer whereas in actuality the petitioner is a Class-III employee. It 2 R.P. No.258/2015 was further submitted by the petitioner before the Division Bench that the petitioner is an office bearer of Registered Association and thus has immunity against transfer.
5. Learned State counsel Ms. Sangeeta Pachauri per contra contends that assuming without admitting that petitioner is a Class-III employee, the said assumption does not improve the case of the petitioner as the petitioner had failed to make out any legal ground on which order of transfer can be successfully challenged. The State Counsel further submits that factum of petitioner being an office bearer of a Registered Association was not backed by any pleading in the writ petition and thus cannot form a good ground for review.
6. Pertinently by way of list of document filed on 23.06.2015 the review petitioner has brought on record copy of receipt vouching for an amount of rupees 2,900/- (Two Thousand Nine Hundred) having been paid on 24th March, 2015 as school annual fees for Class 12th student namely Sahil who is said to be son of the petitioner.
7. The extent, scope and sweep of review jurisdiction of a writ Court is limited. The existence of 3 R.P. No.258/2015 palpable error which is visible at the very first look is a precondition for exercise of review jurisdiction. Inadvertent absence of pleadings cannot be a good ground for review of an order passed in the absence of these pleadings in the writ petition. If such plea is permitted for exercise of review jurisdiction then flood gates would open to enable every litigant to allege inadvertence for having omitted certain pleadings/material thereby compelling the Court to repeatedly change their orders thereby paving the way to judicial anarchy. The sanctity of a judicial order passed is predominantly based on its finality which cannot be disturbed for untenable grounds especially in review jurisdiction.
8. In this view of the above and the pleadings and material brought on record in this review petition as regards petitioner's son studying in Class 12th and petitioner being a member of registered Association are of no avail to the petitioner.
9. This court is in full agreement with the submission of learned State counsel Ms. Sangeeta Pachauri that assuming the petitioner to be a Class-III employee, his case does not become better as that by itself would not compel this Court to review the order 4 R.P. No.258/2015 assailed herein, especially when the petitioner in the writ petition had failed to make out any of the legitimate ground for successfully challenging the order of transfer.
10. In view of above, no case is made out by learned counsel for the petitioner for review of the order under review in this petition.
11. Accordingly this review petition deserves to be and is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to cost.
(Sheel Nagu) Judge Durgekar*