Dismissed

State and Ors. v. Omprakash Tak

Rajasthan HC4 Oct 2017WRW/56/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jodhpur allowed the condonation of a significant delay of 1243 days in filing a writ review petition. The petition sought review of an order granting respondent's claim for post status. The Court found no grounds to invalidate the previous judgment which was based on Lal Chand Sharma precedent and dismissed the review petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ review petition is dismissed and the order dated 30.10.2013 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9049/2013 remains in force.

State and Ors. Vs Omprakash Tak — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Writ Review No. 56 / 2017

¶3

State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Public Health and Engineering Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶4

The Chief Engineer (Rural), Public Health Engineering Department, Jaipur

¶5

Superintending Engineer, Purblic Health and Engineering Department, Circle Bikaner

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Om Prakash Tak S/o Shri Dharmaramji, By Caste Mali, R/o Purani Ginani, Bikaner

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.K. Mehta, AGC

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶12

Judgment / Order

¶13

04/10/2017

¶14

This writ review petition has been filed on behalf of the review petitioners-State with a prayer for reviewing the order dated 30.10.2013 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9049/2013 (Omprakash Tak vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.).

¶15

This writ review petition has been filed with the delay of 1243 days.

¶16

Application (CMCW No.206/2017) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed on behalf of the review petitionersState with a prayer for condoning the delay, in which it is averred that the review petitioners-State have preferred a special appeal

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[WRW-56/2017]

¶19

being D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No.693/2014 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Om Prakash Tak) before the Division Bench of this Court and the same has been dismissed on 17.08.2015, therefore, the delay of 1243 days has been caused in filing this writ review petition. It is contended that the Division Bench of this Court is of the opinion that if the writ petition has been decided by a judgment that is having no application on the facts in question, then the appropriate course available to the State is to file review petition and not an appeal. It is contended that after the dismissal of special appeal immediately the present writ review petition is filed.

¶20

Having heard the learned counsel for the review petitionersState, this Court is of the opinion that the delay in filing the present writ review petition has been explained satisfactorily. Hence, the application (CMCW No.206/2017) filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed and the delay of 1243 days is condoned.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the review petitioners-State on writ review petition.

¶22

Learned counsel for the review petitioners-State has argued that the case of the respondent-Om Prakash Tak is not covered by the decision of this Court rendered in Lal Chand Sharma Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4838/1996) decided on 02.02.2010. It is contended that as a matter of fact, the respondent-Om Prakash Tak cannot claim as a matter of right semi-permanent or permanent status on the post of Store Munshi/LDC as the rules do not permit the same. Learned

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[WRW-56/2017]

¶25

counsel for the review petitioners-State has, therefore, prayed that the order dated 30.10.2013 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9049/2013 (Omprakash Tak Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) is liable to be reviewed.

¶26

It is noticed that at the time of decision of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9049/2013 (Omprakash Tak Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), a joint statement made on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties that the controversy involved in aforesaid writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court rendered in Lal Chand Sharma’s case (supra) decided on 02.02.2010 and on the basis of the statements of learned counsel for the parties, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9049/2013 (Omprakash Tak Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) is allowed in terms of the decision of this Court rendered in Lal Chand Sharma’s case (supra) decided on 02.02.2010.

¶27

Learned counsel for the review petitioners-State has failed to convinced this Court that the case of the respondent-Om Prakash Tak is not covered by the decision of this Court rendered in Lal Chand Sharma’s case (supra) decided on 02.02.2010.

¶28

Hence, no case is made out for reviewing the order dated 30.10.2013 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9049/2013 (Omprakash Tak Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.).

¶29

Accordingly, this writ review petition is dismissed.

¶30

(VIJAY BISHNOI)J.

¶31

Abhishek Kumar S.No.1

State and Ors. v. Omprakash Tak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State and Ors. v. Omprakash Tak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Leelu Ram @ Balram Vs State of Rajasthan

Om Prakash Vs State

Cheema Ram Vs State

Lalit Kumar Vs State and Ors.

M/S. Sona Ram Lichhman Ram Vs State and Ors.

Krishi Kray Vikray Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Vs State and Ors.