Allahabad High Court
Bodhraj Singh (In Spla-333 Of ... vs State Of Up Thru. Secy. ... on 29 July, 2022
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Vivek Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 17 of 2022
Applicant :- Bodhraj Singh (In Spla-333 Of 2019)
Opposite Party :- State Of Up Thru. Secy. Intermediate Education, Lko And Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Som Kartik Shukla,Ravindra Kumar Ravi
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
The Court has convened through Video Conferencing.
The review applicant/writ petitioner had filed a writ petition No. 7124 of 2015 : Bodhraj Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others praying therein to regularize his service in L.T. Grade under Section 33-F of the U.P. Secondary Education Services and Selection Board Act, 1982. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 04.07.2019, dismissed the writ petition, which was challenged by the review applicant by filing Special Appeal No. 333 of 2019 : Bodhraj Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others. A Division Bench of this Court, on the request of the appellant/review applicant, dismissed the special appeal as withdrawn vide order dated 21.11.2019. Subsequently, the review applicant preferred application for modification of the aforesaid order dated 21.11.2019, which was dismissed vide order dated 13.12.2021 as follows :-
"In re: C.M. Application No. 149949 of 2021
Heard Sri Som Kartik Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, and Sri Gopal Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
Cause for the delay in filing the modification application is sufficiently explained. The instant application is allowed and the delay in filing the modification application is condoned.
In re: C.M. Application No. 149952 of 2021
Heard Sri Som Kartik Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, and Sri Gopal Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
This is an application filed on behalf of the applicant-appellant for modification of the order dated 21.11.2019, whereby on the prayer of the learned counsel for the appellant the special appeal has been dismissed as withdrawn.
Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present modification application and he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Brahmadutt Sharma, AIR 1987 SC 943.
Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant could not come out the preliminary objection raised by the learned Standing Counsel.
In view of the above, the present modification application is dismissed."
Now, the review applicant has filed the instant review application, seeking review of the aforesaid order dated 13.12.2021, inter alia on the grounds that modification application was dismissed on the ground of maintainability of the same in the light of legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in State of U.P. Vs. Brahmadutt Sharma (supra) but the same is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case indicated in the modification application.
Learned Counsel for the review applicant admitted the facts that while dismissing the modification application by means of the order under review, he had not raised any objection with regard to non-applicability of the legal proposition laid down by the Apex Court in State of U.P. Vs. Brahmadutt Sharma (supra) in the instant case.
It is settled law that once the case has been finally argued on merit and decided on merit, no application for review lies on the ground that the case should have been differently argued. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is not possible to review a judgment only to give the review applicant a fresh inning. It is not for the litigant to judge of counsel's wisdom after the case has been decided. It is for the counsel to argue the case in the manner as he thinks it should be argued.
Keeping in mind the aforesaid settled proposition of law and also perusing the records, this Court is of the view that no case for reviewing the judgment and order dated 13.12.2021 is made out as there is no apparent error on the face of record.
The review application is, accordingly, dismissed.
.
(Vivek Varma, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 29.7.2022
Ajit/-
