Dismissed

Hemendra Puri v. J.N.v.University,Jodhpur and Ors.

Rajasthan HC17 May 2018WRW/96/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this review application, the High Court was asked to review a judgment denying compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The petitioner alleged forgery of his signature and non-consideration. The Court held that the prior judgment considered relevant facts and there were insufficient grounds for review. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The review petition filed under S.B. Writ Review No. 96/2018 is dismissed.

Hemendra Puri Vs J.N.v.University,Jodhpur… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Writ Review No. 96 / 2018

¶3

Hemendra Puri S/o Late Shri Harish Puri, Aged About 45 Years, By Caste Goswami (Puri), Resident of Care of Lakshman Giri, Goswami, Gau Ghat, Fateh Sagar, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶7

The Vice Chancellor, Jai Narayan Vyas University, Central Office, Residency Road, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶8

The Registrar, Jai Narayan Vyas University, Central Office, Residency Road, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶9

Bhupendra Puri S/o Kamla, Aged About 42 Years, By Caste Goswami (Puri), Resident of Kamla Sadan, Plot No. 6, Subhash Colony, Gali No. 2, Ratanada, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶10

Kamla D/o Shri Shanker Puri, Aged About 65 Years, By Caste Goswami (Puri), Resident of Kamla Sadan, Plot No. 6, Subhash Colony, Gali No. 2, Ratanada, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. BL Swami

¶13

For Respondent(s) :

¶14

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶15

Order

¶16

17/05/2018

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has preferred this

¶18

petition seeking review of the judgment dated 12.04.2018 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6541/2005.

¶19

The reason mentioned in the review petition is that the petitioner and respondent No.4 were available with the respondents-University for being considered to be given compassionate appointment; but the respondents-University has

¶20

(2 of 2)

¶21

[WRW-96/2018]

¶22

not considered the petitioner, who was more eligible for such appointment.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further pointed out that the signature of the petitioner has been forged by respondent No.4 and respondent No.5 in the affidavit and on this count alone, the aforementioned order dated 12.04.2018 deserves to be recalled/ reviewed.

¶24

After hearing counsel for the petitioner and perusing the judgment dated 12.04.2018, this Court is of the view that the judgment dated 12.04.2018 has been passed after considering all the relevant facts which were available on record in the writ petition, and thus, at this stage, in the limited jurisdiction of review, the reasons given in this petition are not sufficient to make any review of the aforesaid judgment.

¶25

Hence, no interference is called for in the present review petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶26

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J.

¶27

sudheer

Hemendra Puri v. J.N.v.University,Jodhpur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemendra Puri v. J.N.v.University,Jodhpur and Ors.

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

Naresh Kumar Parmar and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Basant Lal Katara and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Smt. Jeena Vs Chief Manager P.N.B. Sgnr and Ors.

Niranjan Singh and Ors. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Chhail Singh Vs State and Ors.

Ramesh Kumar Vs Ashok Kumar