Uttarakhand High Court
Vinod Prakash Nautiyal & Others vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 1 April, 2013
Author: Servesh Kumar Gupta
Bench: Servesh Kumar Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Review Application No. 105 of 2013
&
Delay Condonation Application No. 2720 of 2013
In
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 45 of 2011
Vinod Prakash Nautiyal & others. .......... Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others. ............ Respondents
Mr. N.K. Papnoi, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the
petitioners.
Mr. A.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. N.S. Pundir, Brief
Holder for the State of Uttarakhand / respondents.
Mr. R.C. Tamta, Advocate for the review applicant.
Hon'ble Barin Ghosh, C.J.
Hon'ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
There has been some delay in preferring the Review Application and, accordingly, an Application for condonation of delay in preferring the Review Application has been filed. Considered the averments made in the Application for condonation of delay in preferring the Review Application and, being satisfied with the sufficiency of reasons furnished therein, we allow the same.
2. Before the 1994 Act was enacted by the State of Uttar Pradesh, Central Government had issued certain instructions. In terms thereof, certain reservations were available in the promotional posts. By the 1994 Act, a statutory recognition was given to those instructions and, accordingly, they became enforceable in law. Inasmuch as those instructions were issued without carrying out the basic necessary work, required to be carried out, as pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Nagaraja and others vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2006) 8 SCC 212, that part of the 1994 Act has been struck down by the judgment and order under review, whereby statutory blessing 2 was given to those instructions. The review applicant has submitted that, while the writ petition was pending, Government of Uttarakhand was carrying out the exercise, as was required to be carried out and as pointed out in the case of M. Nagaraja (supra), but the said aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Court. If the State Government has carried out or is in the process of carrying out any exercise, in terms of the mandate contained in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, rendered in the case of M. Nagaraja (supra), we make it clear that the judgment and order, under review, has not at all affected the same.
3. With the direction as above, the Review Application is disposed of.
(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C. J.)
01.04.2013 01.04.2013
G