Himachal Pradesh High Court
Surjeet Kumar And Others vs State Of H.P. And Others on 16 March, 2016
Bench: Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Review Petition No. 115 of 2015. Date of decision: 16th March, 2016.
Surjeet Kumar and others ..... Petitioners.
.
Versus State of H.P. and others . ....Respondents Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting ?1 Yes.
of For the petitioners: Mr. Avneesh Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate
General with M/s Romesh Verma
and Anup Rattan, Additional
rt Advocate Generals and Mr. J. K
Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent-State.
_____________________________________________________ Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice, (Oral) Petitioners, by the medium of this Review Petition, are seeking review of the judgment dated 31.12.2014 made by this Court in CWP No. 9266 of 2014 titled Harish Kumar and another versus State of H.P. and others alongwith connected writ petition No.8368 of 2014 titled Sudha and others versus State of H.P. and others. It is apt to reproduce paras 12 and 13 of the said judgment herein.1
Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:55:27 :::HCHP -2-"12.Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. The Tentative Seniority List issued vide office order No.EDN-SLN-Elem.(E.III) Sty--1/ 2014-15925-32 and office order No. EDN-H (2) 7/2014-Pro-JBT-NM dated 21.10.2014, in both the writ petitions, so far it relate to .
private respondents and the persons who are ranking below in the merit list, is quashed and respondents are directed to issue fresh seniority list, strictly as per the merit obtained, in terms of the selection process and make the promotions, strictly, as per the Rules, occupying the field.
of
13.It goes without saying that promotions of the persons, who are ranking above in the merit, to the writ petitioners, be kept in tact and the cases of only those rt persons, who are ranking below in the merit list, be considered, afresh while making exercise for promotions alongwith the writ petitioners and other persons eligible for consideration. The entire exercise be done within two months from today."
2. It is stated that the petitioners were not parties in the writ petition before the Writ Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners was not able to show what is the error apparent on the face of the record and also how the judgment made by this Court is illegal. However, the Review Petition is not in tune with the law laid down by this Court and the apex Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners is not able to carve out a case for review in terms of Section 114 read with Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:55:27 :::HCHP -3-3. It is apt to record herein that this Court has already laid down the parameters in the judgments rendered in Review Petition No. 56 of 2014, titled as .
Ranjeet Khanna versus Chiragu Deen and another, decided on 8th August, 2014 and Review Petition No. 65 of 2015, titled as Union of India & others versus Paras Ram, decided on 25th June, 2015.
of
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that the respondents have passed rt orders Annexures R1 and R5, in terms of the judgment under review. The petitioners are at liberty to seek appropriate remedy, if they are aggrieved by the follow up orders.
5. No case for review is made out. The Review petition is accordingly dismissed, alongwith pending applications, if any.
(Mansoor Ahmad Mir) Chief Justice.
March 16, 2016 (Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
(cm Thakur) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:55:27 :::HCHP