Himachal Pradesh High Court
RP/105/2019 of DILA RAM Vs STATE OF HP AND OTHERS on 31 December 2019
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
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.
Dila Ram
Review Petition No.105 of 2019. Decided on: 31[st] December, 2019.
……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, SeniorAdvocate with Mr. ManishSharma, Advocate.Advocate with Mr. ManishSharma, Advocate.
For the respondents :
Mr. Vikas Rathore, Addl.A.G. with Mr. Yudhvir SinghThakur, Dy. A.G. forrespondents No.1 to 3 and5 to 7.A.G. with Mr. Yudhvir SinghThakur, Dy. A.G. forrespondents No.1 to 3 and5 to 7.
Mr.RajeshSharma,Advocate for respondentNo.4.Advocate for respondentNo.4.
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (oral).
Heard. The present is not a case where
the review petitioner seems to be aggrieved by thejudgment 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 appointthe petitioner as Vidya Upasak in GovernmentPrimary School, Naharan, Tehsil Karsog, DistrictMandi, on quashing the result Annexure P-6,whereby the private respondent was selected assuch, however, the facts remain that the selectionfor filling-up the posts of Vidya Upasak in the schoolhereinabove was initiated long back in the year2002 and the result declared on 23[rd] July, 2012whereby the private respondent declared asselected. No doubt the result and her selection hasnow been quashed and set aside by this Court,however, to appoint the petitioner as Vidya Upasak,at this belated stage, particularly when such postnow ceased to exists, would not be appropriate.2.We, therefore, do not find any reason tointerfere with the well considered judgment soughtto be reviewed by filing this petition rendered by usin the LPA.
3. As a matter of fact, there is neither anymistake nor error apparent on the face of record orsufficient reasons so as to take in its sweep, aground analogous to those specified in thestatutory provisions. There is no material error,manifest on the face of the order, undermining itssoundness or resulting into miscarriage of justice.Review is not an appeal in disguise entitling theparty to be reheard, simply because the partywants a decision to be otherwise. This petition, assuch, is without any merit and the same isaccordingly dismissed.
(Dharam Chand Chaudhary) Judge.
(Jyotsna Rewal Dua)(ps) Judge.
December 31, 2019(ps)