Allowed

The State of Rajasthan v. Ram Kishore Meena Son of Shri Panchu Ram Meena

Rajasthan HC4 Sept 2019WRW/124/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Review Petition seeks condonation of a 319-day delay in filing the review petition. The High Court allowed the application under the Limitation Act, recalling a previous order that had disposed of the matter pending a Supreme Court decision.

What did the court decide?

The application for condonation of delay is allowed and the order dated 16.05.2018 is recalled.

The State of Rajasthan Vs Ram Kishore Meena… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 124/2019

¶3

¶4

D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.154/2018

¶5

¶6

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10716/2016

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Education Secretary, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.

¶9

----Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

Ram Kishore Meena Son Of Shri Panchu Ram Meena, Aged About 31 Years, Ratan Pura Roheda, Post Chaturbhuj Pura, Tehsil Newai, Tonk Rajasthan.

¶12

The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ganesh Meena, AAG For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶16

Order

¶17

04/09/2019

¶18

Heard on application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

¶19

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay of 319 days in filing the review petition, is condoned.

¶20

The application (I.A. No517/2019) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed.

¶21

This review petition has been filed seeking review of the judgment of this Court dated 16.05.2018. By the aforesaid

¶22

(2 of 3)

¶23

[WRW-124/2019]

¶24

judgment taking note of the submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General that the identical matter is pending consideration before the Supreme Court in the special leave to appeal preferred by the State and that the judgment would have a bearing on the same issue involved in the present case also, passed the following order, which reads as under:-

¶25

“Learned Additional Advocate General Mr.SK Gupta submits that the matter is pending consideration before the Apex Court on a Special Leave Petition preferred by the State Government. It is not only in regard to the same controversy but for the same recruitment and the post also. The issue involved in these cases is about operation of shadow/reserve/waiting list, if a candidate fails to join the post after his appointment.

¶26

In view of the above, learned counsel for the parties have agreed for disposal of these appeals by covering them with final outcome of the Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court.

¶27

Accordingly, these special appeals are disposed of with the direction that both the parties would be governed by the outcome of Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court on the same issue and in respect of the same recruitment and post.

¶28

A copy of this order be placed in connected file.”

¶29

Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that statement made by the Additional Advocate General therein that the controversy that was pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was same controversy for the same recruitment and for the same post, is factually incorrect. The SLP of which reference is

¶30

(3 of 3)

¶31

[WRW-124/2019]

¶32

made pertains to appointment on the post of PTI Grade-II and Grade-III, even that matter has been remanded to this Court after setting aside the judgment of the Division Bench.

¶33

Learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to dispute the factual contents of submissions made by learned Additional Advocate General.

¶34

In our view, therefore, the order passed by the Division Bench suffers from apparent error requiring its review/recall of the judgment and for hearing the appeal afresh and deciding it afresh on merits.

¶35

Review petition is allowed. The order dated 16.05.2018 is recalled.

¶36

List this appeal on 04.10.2019.

¶37

The mater is revived to be listed on 04.10.2019.

¶38

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶39

(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J

¶40

Manish/Ravi Sharma/18

The State of Rajasthan v. Ram Kishore Meena Son of Shri Panchu Ram Meena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Rajasthan v. Ram Kishore Meena Son of Shri Panchu Ram Meena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs M.P. Gaur Son of Late Shri Prahlad Sharma

The Secretary, Labour and Employment Department Vs Sandesh Sharma Son of Late Shri Bhairav Dutt Sharma

Manohar Lal Swami S/O Shri Bihari Lal Swami Vs the State of Rajasthan

Vishnu Dutt Sharma S/O Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma Vs the Superintendent Sawai Mansingh Hospital

Commissioner of Customs Exciseandser Tax Vs Castex Technologies Ltd.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Rambhajos