Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rupesh Kumar And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 10 May, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065542-DB
Neutral Citation No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(107) LPA-1177-2024 (O&M)
Decided on : 10.05.2024
Rupesh Kumar & others ......Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Haryana & others ......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present: Mr.D.S.Patwalia, Sr.Advocate
with Mr.Gaurav Rana, Advocate, for the appellant(s).
*****
G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
CM-2830-LPA-2024
1. Application for condonation of delay of 58 days in filing the
present appeal is allowed, in view of the averments made in the application,
duly supported by affidavit of the counsel. Delay of 58 days in filing the
present appeal is hereby condoned.
2. CM stands disposed of.
LPA-1177-2024 (O&M)
3. Consideration in the present appeal, filed by the writ petitioners,
is to the order dated 21.02.2024 passed by the Learned Single Judge in RA-
CW-163-2020 in CWP-494-2015 whereby the earlier order dated 05.02.2020
was reviewed. The same was on the basis of the undertaking given by the
associate for the main counsel of the University, the writ petition had been
disposed of with the observation that the promotion granted to the writ
petitioners were rightly granted and therefore, the threatened action impugned
in the writ petition would not be acted upon in view of the instructions dated
04.05.2018 issued by the Government of Haryana providing for grant of
accelerated promotion to the Reserved Category.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065542-DB
(107) LPA-1177-2024 (O&M) -2-
4. The Learned Single Judge, while allowing the review, restored
the writ petition to its original number and the writ petitioners' objection was
repelled on the ground that the writ petition had been disposed of without
adjudication on merits. The concession being contrary to the pleaded case of
the University and the affidavit having come from the Registrar that there was
no explicit or implicit instructions issued to the counsel weighed with the
Learned Single Judge. Resultantly, relying upon the judgment of the Apex
Court, the University was held not to be bound by the statement made as there
was nothing to show that there was any explicit or implicit instructions, while
keeping in mind that the applicant-respondent was a State University and by
recording a finding that concession was unauthorizedly given by the earlier
counsel at variance with the stand. The argument raised by the appellant that
the review was filed by engaging another counsel without getting the consent
of the earlier Advocate, was rejected. It was also noticed that since the
University had withdrawn the impugned order on 08.11.2023 subject to the
final outcome of the review petition, it would not be a ground to render the
application not maintainable and the order would be subject to the outcome of
the application.
5. Senior Counsel, while taking us to the background of the case has
tried to convince us that the review should not have been allowed, in the facts
and circumstances.
6. However, a perusal of the file would go on to show that
apparently the appellants had not been prejudiced in any manner as there is an
interim order dated 06.02.2015 operating in their favour and the reversion
order dated 06.12.2013 and the subsequent order dated 07.01.2015 (Annexure
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065542-DB
(107) LPA-1177-2024 (O&M) -3-
P-8) which were subject matter of challenge in the writ petition, had been
stayed. The protection has thus enured throughout the litigation and the
Learned Single Judge did not deny the said benefit. As pointed out even by
the University which vide order dated 08.11.2023, it has recalled the reversion
order subject to final order of the review. The review application having been
decided but the writ petition still pending, we are sanguine that the protection
thus granted by this Court would continue during the pendency of the writ
petition. In such circumstances, no prejudice having been caused to the
appellants, we are of the considered opinion that the present appeal is not
maintainable, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Midnapore
Peoples Co-op. Bank Ltd. & others Vs. Chunilal Nanda & others, 2006 (3)
SCT 115.
7. Resultantly, in view of the above discussion, the present appeal is
hereby dismissed in limine. All pending application(s) also stand dismissed.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(LAPITA BANERJI)
10.05.2024 JUDGE
Sailesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
3 of 3
