Patna High Court
Pamala Kumari vs The High Court Of Judicature At Patna on 2 February, 2024
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVIEW No.219 of 2019
In
Letters Patent Appeal No.398 of 2018
======================================================
Pamala Kumari, Wife of Dhirendra Kumar @ Dhirendra Kumar Singh,
Resident of Ayodhya Enclave, Flat No. 303, DVC, Colony Road, Yarpur,
Police Station Gardanibagh, District Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The High Court of Judicature at Patna Through the Registrar General.
2. The Registrar General High Court of Judicature at Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dinu Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Piyush Lall, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 02-02-2024
Re. I. A. No. 1 of 2019
1. The present interlocutory application has been filed
for condonation of delay of 59 days.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay
in filing this review application is condoned.
3. I. A. No. 1 of 2019 stands allowed.
Re. Civil Review No. 219 of 2019
4. Heard Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Piyush Lall, learned counsel for the
Patna High Court C. REV. No.219 of 2019 dt.02-02-2024
2/6
Establishment of the High Court of Judicature at Patna (opposite
party).
5. This application has been filed seeking review of
the order dated 3.4.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench
of this Court in LPA No. 398 of 2018 arising out of CWJC No.
4837 of 2016. By the order under review, the Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court has dismissed the LPA.
6. The writ petition was filed giving rise to CWJC No.
4837 of 2016 for quashing of the letter dated 15.01.2016 as
contained in Memo No. 2995/Accounts issued by the Registrar
General of this Court by which the joining of the petitioner to
the post of Personal Assistant was declined on the ground that
the petitioner did not possess the required eligibility. The
petitioner prayed for a Mandamus directing the Registrar
General of this Court to accept her joining to the said post w.e.f.
24.11.2015
and to give all consequential benefits.
7. Since the writ application was dismissed vide
judgment dated 28.02.2018, the LPA was preferred.
8. Learned counsel for the review petitioner has taken
this Court through the judgment dated 03.04.2019, review of
which has been sought before this Court. Attention has been
drawn towards paragraph '5' of the judgment wherein the
Patna High Court C. REV. No.219 of 2019 dt.02-02-2024
submissions of learned counsel for the High Court has been
taken note of in the following words :-
"5. Replying to the aforesaid
submission, Shri Mrigank Mauli submits that so
far as relaxation is concerned, the same is not the
purport of the Government resolution on which
reliance has been placed, inasmuch as, it
prescribes the maximum age limits of all
categories. This resolution had not been adopted
as on the date of the advertisement and the
maximum age limit of 35 years was existing in
the Patna High Court Officers and Staff
(Conditions of Service & Conduct) Rules, 1997."
9. Learned counsel further submits that the Letters
Patent Appeal was, however, dismissed by this Court on the
understanding that two persons who were given relaxation in the
age belong to the reserved category whereas this review
petitioner comes from general category. In this regard, the
observations of this Court as contained in paragraph '8' of the
judgment have been referred to which is being reproduced
hereunder :-
"8. We have considered the
submissions and there is yet another submission
made that three candidates who had applied
against the said advertisement were extended the
benefit of relaxation whose names had been
disclosed in Paragraph 2 of the affidavit filed
Patna High Court C. REV. No.219 of 2019 dt.02-02-2024
today. It is not disputed by the learned counsel
for the appellant that those three persons are of
the reserved category and not of the general
category."
10. Learned counsel submits that after the judgment
of this Court, the review petitioner came to know that those two
candidates who were given benefit of relaxation in age also
belong to the general category, therefore, the submission is that
the judgment of this Court suffers from error of record.
11. Mr. Piyush Lall, learned counsel for the opposite
parties submits that in fact in the Letters Patent Appeal, the
opposite parties had taken a stand as regards the provisions for
relaxation in age which may be found in paragraph '5' of the
judgment. It is categorically recorded therein that so far as the
relaxation is concerned, the same is not the purport of the
Government resolution, inasmuch as, it prescribes the maximum
age limits of all categories. The order further observes that this
resolution had not been adopted as on the date of advertisement
and the maximum age limit of 35 years was existing in the Patna
High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service &
Conduct) Rules, 1997.
12. Learned counsel has further placed before this
Court the document on which Mr. Dinu Kumar has placed
Patna High Court C. REV. No.219 of 2019 dt.02-02-2024
reliance and the same has been brought on record with the
supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner as
Annexure '4'. It is submitted that when the petitioner made an
application under Right to Information Act seeking certain
information, the same was provided to the petitioner. While
giving information with regard to Item No. 3, the opposite
parties have informed the petitioner as under :-
"Item No.3: Three candidates from
general category were given relaxation in
maximum age of 35 years on account of earlier
employment."
13. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid
information is in consonance with the stand taken by the
opposite parties which are reflected in paragraph '2' of the
affidavit filed by the petitioner in the Letters Patent Appeal as
under :-
"That, the relaxation as indicated in
the advertisement has been granted to other
candidates, namely, Sri Rajeev Kumar Sinha, Sri
Amit Kumar and Sri Ajay Kumar on the ground
of working in the government establishment and
they have been presently working as Personal
Assistants in the establishment of Patna High
Court but, at the same time, the appellant, who
has been working in the office of Advocate
General, Bihar, Patna and certificate to that effect
Patna High Court C. REV. No.219 of 2019 dt.02-02-2024
was also issued, has not been granted relaxation
of the age for the working period in the office of
Advocate General, State of Bihar."
14. It is, thus, submitted that the observations of the
Hon'ble Division Bench as contained in paragraph '8' of the
judgment is only indicating that it was by way of submissions
made at the Bar and the same has been incorporated. That
observation does not form part of the record.
15. Having regard to the aforementioned submissions
and materials noticed on the record, we find no error in the
judgment under review.
16. This review application has no merit. It is
dismissed accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
avinash/shiv
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 06.02.2024
Transmission Date
