Himachal Pradesh High Court
RP/105/2019 on 31 December 2019
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Review Petition No.105 of 2019.
Decided on: 31st December, 2019. Dila Ram ……Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others .…Respondents.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Yudhvir Singh Thakur, Dy. A.G. for respondents No.1 to 3 and 5 to 7. Mr.
Rajesh
Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4. Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.
(oral). Heard. The present is not a case where the review petitioner seems to be aggrieved by the judgment sought to be reviewed. True it is that in 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
the writ petition one of the prayers was to appoint the petitioner as Vidya Upasak in Government Primary School, Naharan, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, on quashing the result Annexure P-6, whereby the private respondent was selected as such, however, the facts remain that the selection for filling-up the posts of Vidya Upasak in the school hereinabove was initiated long back in the year 2002 and the result declared on 23rd July, 2012 whereby the private respondent declared as selected. No doubt the result and her selection has now been quashed and set aside by this Court, however, to appoint the petitioner as Vidya Upasak, at this belated stage, particularly when such post now ceased to exists, would not be appropriate.
2. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the well considered judgment sought to be reviewed by filing this petition rendered by us in the LPA.
3. As a matter of fact, there is neither any mistake nor error apparent on the face of record or sufficient reasons so as to take in its sweep, a ground analogous to those specified in the statutory provisions. There is no material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermining its soundness or resulting into miscarriage of justice. Review is not an appeal in disguise entitling the party to be reheard, simply because the party wants a decision to be otherwise. This petition, as such, is without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Dharam Chand Chaudhary) Judge.
(Jyotsna Rewal Dua) December 31, 2019(ps) Judge.