Sanjay Kumar vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 1389 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                         CIVIL REVIEW No.11 of 2021
                                          In
                  Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7750 of 2020
     ======================================================

Sanjay Kumar Son of Muneshwar Choudhary Resident of Mohalla and P.O.- Mahanandpur, P.S.-Dipnagar, District-Nalanda (Bihar).

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of transport Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Veterinary College, Patna-14.

3. The Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Veterinary College, Patna-

14.

4. The Examination Controller, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Veterinary College, Patna-14.

5. Mr. Dilip Kumar, S/o Mahesh Prasad through the Principal Secretary, Department of transport, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

     For the Petitioner/s     :    Mr.Rajiv Krishna Bariar
                              :    Mr.Purushottam Kumar Jha
     For the Opposite Party/s :    Mr.Ajay Kumar Rastogi (AAG-10)

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 10-03-2021

The petitioner, in the present application is seeking

review of an order passed by this Court dated 18.09.2020 in

C.W.J.C. No. 7750 of 2020 whereby his writ application was

dismissed.

2. The petitioner had approached this Court by way of

aforementioned writ application, seeking quashing of an order Patna High Court C. REV. No.11 of 2021 dt.10-03-2021

dated 26.08.2019 whereby his candidature for selection against the

post of Motor vehicle Inspector made in pursuance of

Advertisement No. 2607 dated 01.08.2007 was cancelled. The

dispute, which the writ petition involved, has been mentioned in

paragraph 3 of the order under review. It is evident from the said

paragraph that apart from minimum eligibility of educational and

technical qualification, the Advertisement No. 2607 dated

01.08.2007 required that a candidate for the post must have the

work experience of repair, overhauling and inspection in a

Workshop registered under the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter

referred to as 'the act') engaged in the business of repair of light

and heavy motor vehicles etc. The Court had noted that the only

question which warranted determination in the writ application

was, as to whether, the petitioner had been able to make out a case

that the Workshop, in which, the petitioner claimed to have

worked in support of his work experience, was registered under

the Act, during the period when the petitioner claimed to have

acquired the desired experience. This Court upon examination of

the materials on record and submissions advanced on behalf of the

parties recorded that there was no convincing material at all to

show that registration of the Workshop in question namely

Sarvoday Engineering Works & Auto Servicing was subsisting or Patna High Court C. REV. No.11 of 2021 dt.10-03-2021

renewed for the calendar year 2001, 2002 and 2003. It is to be

noticed that it was contended on behalf of the petitioner in the writ

proceeding that one Dilip Kumar had also submitted his work

experience certificate issued by the same Workshop, which was

accepted as valid for the purpose of fulfilling the qualification

prescribed in the advertisement. Dealing with the said contention

of the petitioner, this Court had recorded following findings in

paragraph 8:-

"It has already been noted above, on the basis of the documents relied on by the petitioner himself, that registration of the work shop was renewed for the calendar years 2004 and 2005. Evidently, the period when the petitioner claims to have acquired experience from the work shop, the registration of the work shop was not renewed whereas in case of Dilip Kumar, his work experience relates to a period when the registration of the work shop in question, was renewed."

3. It has been stated in the review application

that on 18.09.2020, a supplementary affidavit was filed on

behalf of the petitioner and a short adjournment was sought,

so that the certificate of registration of the firm in question Patna High Court C. REV. No.11 of 2021 dt.10-03-2021

(Sarvoday Engineering Works & Auto Servicing) for the

calendar years 2001, 2002 and 2003 (wrongly typed as

2002) might be brought on record. However, the writ

application was dismissed on merit on the same day i.e.

18.09.2020. It is the petitioner's case that non consideration

of supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner

has resulted in dismissal of the connected writ petition.

With the review application, a copy of the supplementary

affidavit said to have been filed on behalf of the petitioner,

has been brought on record.

4. Mr. Purushottam Kumar Jha, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has referred to

Annexures 12, 13 and 14 of the supplementary affidavit

said to have been filed on 18.09.2020 in C.W.J.C. No. 7750

of 2020 to submit that the Workshop in question did have

the necessary registration. The Court has noticed apparent

over-writings in description of the calendar years in

Annexure 12 and Annexure 14 of the supplementary

affidavit, which has been annexed with the present review

application. In response to a query made by this Court, as to

the circumstance, in which, the said over-writings are

present in the documents, Mr. Jha, learned counsel for the Patna High Court C. REV. No.11 of 2021 dt.10-03-2021

petitioner has submitted that since the figures were not

legible, the same have been highlighted by the acts of

overwriting by learned counsel.

5. The documents on which the petitioner is

thus placing reliance in the present review application,

which according to the petitioner could not be brought to

this Court's notice are not sacrosanct and have been

tinkered with, which in the Court's tentative opinion is a

misdemeanor. In any view of the matter, no case for review

of the order is made out.

6. A review application cannot be entertained

lightly and can be entertained only when there is a glaring

omission/patent mistake or like grave error crept in the

earlier order by judicial fallibility, Moran Mar Basselios

Catholicos and Another v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose

Athanasius and Others (AIR 1954 SC 538). There is no

averment in the application seeking review that despite

exercise of due diligence, the petitioner could not obtain the

documents in question on or before the date of passing of

the order.

7. Further, facts disclosed in the order under

review depicts that the petitioner is unnecessarily cogitating Patna High Court C. REV. No.11 of 2021 dt.10-03-2021

the issue in relation to the selection process, which started

in 2007. This is a completely frivolous application, which

deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) AKASH/-

AFR/NAFR                       NAFR
CAV DATE                        N/A
Uploading Date              10/03/2021
Transmission Date               N/A