Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ravi Kumar vs Director General Of Police &Anr; on 13 July, 2017
Author: Mn Bhandari
Bench: M.N.Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 279/2016
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10414/2015
Ravi Kumar S/o Shri Sardharam, aged about 31 years, resident of
166/368, Cement Factory, Sahu Nagar, Sawai Madhopur,
Rajasthan.
...Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The superintendent of Police, Jhalawar, Rajasthan.
Respondents
1. Shiv Janam Giri S/o Shri Raja Giri, aged about 48 years, by caste Giri, resident of 68/200, Cement Factory, Shau Nagar, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan.
Applicant _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr Shivpal Meena Ms Komal Giri For Respondent(s) : Dr AS Khangarot, Addl GC Mr Amit Singh Shekhawat _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.BHANDARI Order 13/07/2017 Heard on the misc. application. It is stated that application for impleadment was filed but on the date when case was listed, counsel could not appear before the court. The application was dismissed. The absence of the counsel was bona fide thus while recalling the order dated 14.7.2016, applicant may be provided an opportunity of hearing because on the complaint made by the applicant, criminal case was pending against the petitioner-Ravi Kumar thus he is not entitled to get appointment.
Learned counsel for respondents submits that after the judgment sought to be recalled, the order has been passed by the Division Bench directing the authority to govern it by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of "Avtar Singh versus Union of India", (2016) 8 SCC 471. In view of the aforesaid, application is not maintainable. It is otherwise a fact that in case of appointment of the petitioner, it will not affect the trial in any manner.
I have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
On 14.7.2016, when writ petition was listed in the court, learned counsel for the applicant chose not to remain present in the court. No justifiable reason has been given for his absence. In any case, if the contents of the application for impleadment are also considered, it is to seek impleadment in a writ petition filed by the petitioner-Ravi Kumar seeking appointment on the post of Costable, which was denied to him due to pendency of criminal case. The criminal case was registered at the instance of the applicant but it does not give him a cause to contest the other issue and more specifically the appointment in service. In the light of the facts aforesaid, applicant cannot be said to be a necessary party so as to recall the order and otherwise it would be in futility. It is more so when the order has been passed even by the Division Bench covering the present writ petition by the judgment in the case of Avtar Singh (supra).
Accordingly, misc. application is dismissed which otherwise is not maintainable because vide order dated 14.7.2016 the writ petition was finally decided thus it may amount to review but review petition has not been filed.
(MN BHANDARI) J.
bnsharma