[2023/RJJD/009892] (1 of 3) [WRW-20/2023] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 20/2023 Asha Ram Gurjar S/o Ganpat Lal Gurjar, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Pathik Nagar Ii, Tehsil Bijoliya, District Bhilwara (Raj.).
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Elementary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Department Of Elementary Education, Bikaner.
3. The District Education Officer, Department Of Elementary Education, Bundi (Raj.).
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, District Bundi, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Joshi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG with
Mr. Deepak Chandak
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
13/04/2023
1. By way of instant review petition, the petitioner has prayed that the order under consideration dated 29.03.2023 passed by this Court be reviewed because due to inadvertence the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court dated 28.10.2021 in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s).132/2016 could not be brought to the notice of this Court when the order under review was passed. (Downloaded on 15/04/2023 at 10:13:25 PM) [2023/RJJD/009892] (2 of 3) [WRW-20/2023]
2. Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the fact that the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Rajneesh Kumar (supra) was not cited by the petitioner/counsel for the petitioner cannot be said to be a case of apparent error on the face of record, for which, the petitioner can invoke review jurisdiction of this Court.
3. Mr. Sunil Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner invited Court's attention towards the Full Bench decision of Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of the Nalagarh Dehati Co- operative Transport Society Ltd., Nalagarh Vs. Beli Ram and Ors., decided on 29.08.1980 and submitted that if a law laid down or existing decision of the Supreme Court has not been taken into consideration by the High Court, it amounts to mistake or error apparent on face of the record and the same is a ground for review.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
5. A simple look at the order under consideration dated 29.03.2023 shows that this Court has simply covered the case of the petitioner by Division Bench's judgment dated 14.12.2022 rendered in the case of Usha Kumari & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.149/2022 and other connected matters). Neither any arguments were advanced nor any distinctions were pointed out by the petitioner, hence there was no occasion for this Court to deal with the judgment in the case of Rajneesh Kumar (supra).
6. If at all there was something to be considered in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajneesh (Downloaded on 15/04/2023 at 10:13:25 PM) [2023/RJJD/009892] (3 of 3) [WRW-20/2023] Kumar (supra), the same was to be cited before and considered by the Division Bench of this Court, which decided bunch of petitions led by Usha Kumari's case and not by this Court.
7. If the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, then, it would amount to commenting upon the correctness of Division Bench's judgment in the case of Usha Kumari (supra), which is otherwise binding on this Court.
8. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any reason or ground to review its order dated 29.03.2023.
9. The review petition is, therefore, fails.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 11-Arvind/-
(Downloaded on 15/04/2023 at 10:13:25 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)