HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 169/2017
1. Mahesh Chand Sharma S/o Late Shri Suwa Lal Joshi, P.n.
10, Mission Compound, Near Roadways Bus Stand, Ajmer
Raj..
2. Om Prakash Sharma S/o Late Shri Samrath Lal Sharma,
16/847, Saraswati Nagar, Kayad Road, Ajmer Raj..
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer Raj.
Through Its Registrar.
2. The Vice Chancellor, Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati
University, Ajmer Raj..
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. NK Bhatt For Respondent(s) : Mr. TS Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order 19/08/2021 This review petition has been preferred after a delay of 435 days. An application under section 5 of the Limitation Act has been moved, however, the reasons given therein are that the petitioners were collecting the documents which could not be collected in time and have recently got copy of the judgment dated 23.02.2017 and therefore they have now filed the review petition.
This court finds that the judgment which the petitioners seek to review is dated 11.01.2016 and the grounds therefore raised in the application under Section 5 are wholly flimsy as a judgment of 2017 was not existing at the time when the present judgment in the review was passed. That apart, the court has noted as under: (Downloaded on 19/08/2021 at 10:23:51 PM)
(2 of 2) [WRW-169/2017] "Petitioners have not filed seniority list to claim benefit of stepping up which otherwise remains the basis for it. Learned counsel was asked as to whether petitioner is having the seniority list so as to be filed. He insisted for assessment of seniority by this court after considering the order of appointment of the petitioners and Mr. Jitendra Goswami. The court was even incline to grant time to learned counsel for filing of the seniority list but learned counsel refused to file copy of the seniority list. In view of above, I find that the claim has been made based on the seniority without filing the seniority list." Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mistake was on the part of the counsel who was not able to understand the query of the court. Seniority lists were existing at that time and that comparative seniority list was not there. However, this court finds that even after 11.01.2016 for more than 435 days, the petitioner has kept silence. If there was seniority list already existing, the application could have been moved immediately thereafter seeking a review and also placing the seniority list on record.
The contentions of the counsel for the petitioner are therefore, without any basis and are liable to be rejected.
Taking into consideration the documents which are on record and as there was no seniority list available with the court, no case for review is made out.
The review petition is therefore dismissed, on the ground of gross delay and latches as well as on merits.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J CHHAYA AWASTHI /72 (Downloaded on 19/08/2021 at 10:23:51 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)