High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Naresh Dubey. v. The State of Punjab & Ors. - RA-367-2006  RD-P&H 11733 (1 December 2006)
R.A.No.367 of 2006 in
C.W.P. No. 6299 of 1995
Date of Decision: 1.12.2006
The State of Punjab and others.
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mahesh Grover
Present: Shri R.D. Bawa, Advocate for the applicant-Rajiv Prashar.
The applicant, who was respondent no.3 in all the writ petitions mentioned below, has filed this application in C.W.P.No.6299 of 1995 under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for review of judgment dated 8.11.2006 of this Court passed in C.W.P.
Nos.3753, 6299, 8365 and 11265 of 1995 vide which appointments of the private respondents including the applicant given on compassionate grounds were quashed being contrary to the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch (Class-I) Rules, 1976 and a direction was given to absorb them elsewhere as per their entitlement under the relevant instructions.
The only ground on which the review of the judgment has been R.A.No.367 of 2006 in
sought is that the name of the counsel for the applicant, i.e., Shri R.D.Bawa, Advocate, had not appeared in the cause list and as such, he could not put in appearance to plead the case of the applicant and assist the Court on the date(s) the arguments were heard in the writ petitions.
Shri R.D.Bawa, learned counsel for the applicant contended that since his name did not appear in the cause list, he could not come present at the time of the arguments in the writ petitions. Shri Bawa submitted that he wishes to bring to the notice of the Court the details of the communications which were exchanged between the functionaries of this Court and those of the government, as also the filing of C.W.P. No.11708-A of 1992 decided on 23.2.1993, pursuant to which the applicant was given appointment to Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch). In view of the above, learned counsel contended that in the interest of justice, the judgment dated 8.11.2006 may be recalled and an opportunity may be afforded to him to address the Court.
Having thoughtfully considered the contentions of the learned counsel and perused the record, I am of the opinion that there is no ground to review judgment dated 8.11.2006. At the time of rendering the judgment, the government records relating to all the appointees including the applicant were perused and it was noticed that the cases of all the appointees had emanated from the assurances given by the functionaries of the State and appointments were given without adhering to the relevant rules. Filing of the writ petition no.11708-A/1992 ipso facto did not lend any weight in favour of the applicant because the same had been disposed of by this Court with a direction to the government to take a final decision in the matter of his appointment on
R.A.No.367 of 2006 in
compassionate grounds and pass appropriate orders.
That apart, Shri Deepak Sibal, Advocate had represented before the Court at the time of arguments in the writ petitions that he was appearing on behalf of private respondent nos. 3 to 5 including the applicant in all the writ petitions. Even Shri H.S.Mattewal, Senior Advocate appeared and argued the matter on behalf of these respondents.
For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the review application and the same is hereby dismissed.
December 01,2006 (Mahesh Grover)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.