Madhya Pradesh High Court
Zulfiqar Ali vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 January, 2011
R.P. No.20.11
Review Petition No. 20 of 2011
17/01/2011
Shri Sheel Nagu, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Govt. Advocate for
the respondents/State.
By this petition the petitioner seeks review of the order dated 20102010 passed in Writ Petition No. 24324 of 2003.
By the said order the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The petition was for a direction to the respondents to provide appointment on the post of Constable which, as per the petitioner, he was selected after due selection. This Court while noting down the principle of law as laid down in State of A. P. and others v. D. Dastagiri and others ; (2003) 5 SCC 373, The General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and another v. A.V.R. Siddhanti and others; AIR 1974 SC 1755, that a placement in a select list does not ipso facto create any right in favour of incumbent, as also noting the fact that the petitioner was not given appointment on the ground that in his character antecedents form he suppressed the information pertaining to the prosecution in a criminal case filed before the R.P. No.20.11 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vidisha, for an offence under sections 341, 354, 457 and 382 of IPC.
The petitioner by way of present review petition has to submit that during pendency of Writ Petition No. 24324 of 2003 he was honourably acquitted of the criminal charge which led the State Government to direct his appointment on the post of Constable, G.R.P., Bhopal, on substantive basis in the payscale of Rs. 30504590 by order dated 11022000. The contention is that, consequent thereof, an appointment letter was issued on 29082000, in pursuance whereof, the petitioner joined as Constable, G.R.P., in the office of Superintendent of Police, G.R.P., Bhopal and was posted at Railway Police Line, Bhopal by order dated 30082000. It is further contended that since the petitioner was appointed as Constable, he instructed his counsel not to press the writ petition, which was pending before this Court. It is urged that for the reasons best known to the learned counsel no such prayer was made as a result whereof and for nonappearance of his counsel in writ petition, the same was dismissed on merit. It is urged that since the petitioner has already joined as Constable in pursuance to the order dated 29082000, the cause which was raised in Writ Petition No. 24324 of 2003, R.P. No.20.11 rendered infructuous. It is, however, contended that because of the order dated 20102010, the petitioner is contemplating an irreparable injury which may be caused to him.
Learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents/State on advance notice does not dispute the factual aspect as put forth by the petitioner.
Keeping in view the entire facts on record and that if the order dated 20102010 passed in Writ Petition No. 24324 of 2003, is allowed to persist, would cause irreparable injury to the petitioner, we are inclined to recall the same.
The order dated 20102010 passed in Writ Petition No. 24324 of 2003 is hereby recalled. The Writ Petition No. 24324 of 2003 is restored.
This review petition is allowed to the extent above.
Let a copy of this order be kept on record in Writ Petition No. 24324 of 2003.
(AJIT SINGH) (SANJAY YADAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
SC