The High Court dismissed a review application challenging the dismissal of a writ petition regarding promotion eligibility. The court held that the applicant was not re-agitating the merits and found no manifest error on the face of the record.
Review Application No. 73 of 2017 in CWP No. 10408 of 2015 dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Review Application No. 73 of 2017 In CWP No. 10408 of 2015 Date of Decision : 15.12.2017
Dharam Pal Sharda
........... Applicant/petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
............. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Present: Mr. Pawan Kumar, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Vipin Kumar, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioner.
Mr. A.S. Dhaliwal, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Kannan Malik, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
Jaishree Thakur J.
Review Application No. 73 of 2017 i n CWP No. 10408 of 2015 -2-
dismissed from service. The Civil Writ Petition No. 7900 of 1999 was allowed, which was filed expunging the adverse remarks in ACR for the period 01.04.1993 to 31.03.1994. While disposing of the aforesaid writ petition, the matter was remanded back to the Secretary Co-operation giving a direction that the average ACRs of the petitioner have to be considered and he should be graded accordingly. In compliance of the said order passed in CWP No. 7900 of 1999, the petitioner herein was awarded 2.5 marks. Not having the benchmark, he was not considered for promotion. The order of the Secretary Co-operation was challenged in the instant writ petition i.e Civil Writ Petition No. 10408 of 2015 which was dismissed holding that there was no infirmity in the orders so passed.
Satyawan 2017.12.15 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh
Review Application No. 73 of 2017 i n CWP No. 10408 of 2015 -3-
Satyawan 2017.12.15 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh
Review Application No. 73 of 2017 i n CWP No. 10408 of 2015 -4-
of the petitioner for the period 01.04.1993 to 31.03.1994. While disposing of the writ petition it was directed as under:
“In re-examining the adverse remarks in the ACR for the period 1st April, 1993 to 31st of March, 1994, the Secretary, Cooperation, Punjab, Chandigarh shall remain guided by the ACRs of the petitioner recorded prior to1st April, 1993 and after 31st March, 1994 and may take the average of those remarks as guidance while passing an appropriate order exercising the power of review as no better solution can be found in the peculiar circumstances, and the predicament Mr. C.L Bains has placed this Court for his improper actions which law forbade.”
Satyawan 2017.12.15 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh
Review Application No. 73 of 2017 i n CWP No. 10408 of 2015 -5-
15.12.2017 (JAISHREE THAKUR) Satyawan JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No.
Satyawan 2017.12.15 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a review application is maintainable when the applicant seeks to re-agitate the merits of an earlier dismissed writ petition.
Whether there is any mistake apparent on the face of the record warranting interference with the order dismissing the review petition.
Whether the applicant was entitled to promotion based on the average assessment of service records pursuant to a prior court order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
N. Anantha Reddy vs. Anshu Kathuria and othersReferred¶24
N. Anantha Reddy vs. Anshu Kathuria and others (2013) 15 SCC 534 · Who else cites this
S Bagirathi Ammal vs. Palani Roman Catholic MissionReferred¶24
S Bagirathi Ammal vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission (2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases 464
Sasi (Dead) through Legal Representatives Versus Aravindakshan Nair and OthersReferred¶24
Sasi (Dead) through Legal Representatives Versus Aravindakshan Nair and Others, (2017) 4 SCC 692 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dharam Pal Sharda
State of Punjab
Jaishree Thakur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
