Harishankar Ojha (In Splad 533 Of ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8523 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 1
 

 
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 64 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Harishankar Ojha (In Splad 533 Of 2021)
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Civil Secrtt. Lko. And Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Arjun Kumar Kaushal
 

 
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

The Court has convened through Video Conferencing.

Order on C.M. Application No. 1 of 2022

The Stamp Reporter has reported that the instant review application has been filed beyond 25 days.

For the reasons contained in delay condonation application, application for condonation of delay (C.M.Application No. 1 of 2022) is allowed. Delay in filing the instant review application is condoned.

Order on Memo of the Review Application

Heard Shri Arjun Kumar Kaushal, learned Counsel for the review applicant and perused the material brought on record.

It appears that the claim of the review applicant herein to change his date of birth in his service record was rejected by the Executive Engineer, Lucknow Division, Sharda Nahar, Lucknow vide order dated 07.09.2019, which was challenged by the review applicant in Service Single No. 32929 of 2019. The learned Single Judge, while considering the facts that the writ petitioner/review applicant herein had already signed the service book in which date of birth was mentioned as 17.06.1962 and in the seniority list also, his date of birth was mentioned as 17.06.1962, came to the conclusion that there was no error in the order passed by the competent authority declining the correction of the date of birth to 01.01.1972 instead of 17.06.1962 and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition vide judgment and order dated 08.09.2021. Feeling aggrieved, the review applicant had preferred Special Appeal Defective No. 533 of 2021 : Harishanker Ojha Vs. State of U.P. and others, which was dismissed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 21.12.2021 on the ground that there was no such palpable infirmities or perversity in the order of the learned Single Judge dated 08.09.2021 as it is settled proposition of law that the date of birth as entered in the service book cannot be corrected at the fag-end of the career.

Now, review applicant preferred the instant review application for reviewing the aforesaid judgment and order dated 21.12.2021 on as many as 13 grounds.

This Court had asked Shri Arjun Kumar Kaushal, learned Counsel for the review applicant to specify the grounds on which he proposes to seek review of the aforesaid judgment. However, he was unable to refer to any of the specific grounds taken in the review application on which he proposed to get the judgment reviewed.

Having heard learned Counsel for the review applicant and gone through the contents of review application, it transpires that the review applicant/appellant has, in fact, tried to persuade the Court for re-hearing and re-appraisal of the matter, which is not permissible under the review jurisdiction of this Court. No element of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is present in the review petition. In other words, the applicant/appellant has failed to point out any error apparent on the face of record. It appears that review applicant/appellant wants re-hearing of the case under the garb of the instant review application, which is not permissible. Thus, this Court do not find any error apparent on record to justify interference.

For the reasons aforesaid, review petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.

(Vivek Varma, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

Order Date :- 29.7.2022

Ajit/-