Allowed

The Public Service Commission v. Smt. Richa Tiwari

Chhattisgarh HC1 May 2019REVP/56/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition challenged an order allowing a writ petition due to incorrect statistical data provided by the respondents. The court accepted the petitioner's plea, recalled the impugned order, and directed a rehearing with correct figures.

What did the court decide?

Review petition allowed; order of 07.08.2018 in WPS No.4318 of 2010 recalled; writ petition listed for fresh hearing on 08.05.2019.

The Public Service Commission Vs Smt. Richa Tiwari — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR REVIEW PETITION NO. 56 OF 2019

¶4

The Public Service Commission Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, C.G.P.S.C. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶5

…Petitioner(s)

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Smt. Richa Tiwari W/o Shri Sonal Tiwari Aged About 38 Years R/o Rarijat Colony Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

2. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Higher Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

3. University Grant Commission Through Its Secretary Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. 110002.

¶10

… Respondent(s)

¶11

For Petitioner : Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate.
For Respondent-State : Shri Ishan Verma, Panel Lawyer.
For Respondent No. 1 : Shri ShivangDubey, Advocate.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

01.05.2018

¶15

1. The present review petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 07.08.2018 passed by this court in WPS No.4318 of 2010.

¶16

2. The review of the writ petition has been sought on the ground that inadvertently certain incorrect statistical informations were provided to the court so far as the total number of candidates in Chemistry subject is concerned and because of the incorrect statistical information provided, the writ petition stood allowed.

¶17

3. According to the petitioner, it is a case where the case of the petitioner, if not identical, similar to two writ petitions which were dismissed on the same day i.e. WPS No.486 of 2011 in case of Kumari Seema Anchal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. and WPS No.6432 of 2010, Mrs. Bhavna Shrivastava Vs. State of

¶18

¶19

Chhattisgarh & Anr. after receiving the actual figures provided by the State/PSC so far as the respective subjects of those petitioners.

¶20

4. The respondent No.1, i.e. the petitioner in the writ petition is represented through their counsel in the present review petition. The counsel for the respondents after going through the contents of the review petition fairly concedes that the contention of the petitionerPSC seems to be correct/justified.

¶21

5. Accordingly, taking into consideration the figures that have been disclosed in the review petition as compared to the figures that were made initially while disposing of the writ petition, this court is of the opinion that the writ petition got allowed on incorrect figures and details provided by the respondents and the order dated 07.08.2018 passed in the said writ petition i.e. WPS No.4318 of 2010 therefore needs to be recalled and the writ petition is supposed to be decided afresh taking into consideration the correct figures that is provided by the PSC.

¶22

6. In view of the same, the review petition stands allowed. The order dated 07.08.2018 passed in WPS No.4318 of 2010 stands recalled. WPS No.4318 of 2010 shall be listed for hearing on 08.05.2019.

¶23

Sd/(P. Sam Koshy) Judge

¶24

inder

The Public Service Commission v. Smt. Richa Tiwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Public Service Commission v. Smt. Richa Tiwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J N Divya Vs Shri R K Gupta

Ramesh Kumar Mohbe Vs Gyanendra Singh Thakur

N.K. Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Maniram Baiga Vs Shri Bheem Singh

Laha Ram Ratrey Vs Gourav Dwivedi

Gorge Sulman Vs State of Chhattisgarh