Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/16/2008 of J.K. PANT Vs SECRETARY P.W.D. AND ORS. on 31 December 2012
No. 1097 of 2010 In WPSB No. 16 of 2008 Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. Mr. V.K. Kaparwan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 6. Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate, assisted by
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
Review Application No. 1097 of 2010
In WPSB No. 16 of 2008
Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J.
Mr. V.K. Kaparwan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 6.
Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sandeep Adhikari, Advocate for respondent No. 5 / review applicant.
It is a review by respondent No. 5, who has contended that, since the writ petitioner was never selected for being appointed to the post of Superintending Engineer, question of his being appointed as Superintending Engineer did not arise and, accordingly, he could not be given notional promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer at any date or as was granted. Consequentially, the direction given for giving notional promotion to the writ petitioner to the post of Chief Engineer is also an error apparent on the face of records.
The fact remains that the review applicant / respondent No. 5 did not file counter affidavit, nor appeared, and, accordingly, never contended that the writ petitioner was never selected for being appointed / promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer. That being the situation, at the instance of the review applicant, review of the order, sought for, is not permissible.
The Review Application fails and the same is dismissed.
(U.C. Dhyani, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 31.12.2012
G