Rajender Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 11892 P&H

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH


                                                  RA-LP-25-2020 (O & M) in
                                                              LPA-2132-2017
                                                  Date of decision: 21.09.2022

Rajender Kumar                                                  ....Appellant(s)

                                      Versus


State of Haryana and others                                  ....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:     Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate,
             for the review-applicant/appellant.

             Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana.

                   ****

G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral)

Review is sought of the order dated 13.01.2020 passed by the

the co-ordinate Bench.

It has been argued by the counsel that since the benefit of 'C'

certificate had been given, therefore, there was a presumption that the

applicant-appellant had a 'B' certificate for NCC examination.

We have perused the judgment which is sought to be reviewed

and the argument which is sought to be raised that if the appellant was

having a 'C' certificate and, therefore, there has to be a logical conclusion of

having a 'B' certificate as well and making him entitled for 1 more mark.

We have put it to counsel for the applicant-appellant that

whether it was his specific case before the learned Single Judge.

Very fairly, it has been conceded by the counsel that it has not

been pleaded in specific terms and, therefore, the learned Single Judge never

dealt with the said issue. Even otherwise, we find that the competent

1 of 2

RA-LP-25-2020 (O & M) -2-

authorities namely the NCC has not been impleaded as a respondent as such

to verify this aspect that by having a 'C' certificate, it is implied that he was

also entitled for the 'B' certificate for which he claims the marks. The order

which is sought to be reviewed specifically noticed that at the time of the

attendance, interview and production of documents, only the 'C' certificate

had been produced, benefit of which had been given and the applicant had

failed to make the cut.

In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that

keeping in view the limited scope of the review application as such, the

argument which is raised is not liable to be taken into consideration as the

abovesaid order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity which would

warrant review. Even otherwise, we are of the considered opinion that the

advertisement is of the year 2012 and a decade has gone by and at this stage,

to seek reconsideration at the cost of respondent No.4, would be unfair since

the claim of merit has been sought at the expense of respondent No.4.

Accordingly, no ground for review of the order dated

13.01.2020 is made out and the present review application is dismissed.

                                                     (G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
                                                             JUDGE



21.09.2022                                           (JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
shivani                                                    JUDGE


Whether reasoned/speaking                     Yes/No
Whether reportable                            Yes/No




                                 2 of 2