Rajasthan High Court
Mahesh Chand Sharma Andanr vs M D S University Of Raj Andanr on 19 August, 2021
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 169/2017
1. Mahesh Chand Sharma S/o Late Shri Suwa Lal Joshi, P.n.
10, Mission Compound, Near Roadways Bus Stand, Ajmer
Raj..
2. Om Prakash Sharma S/o Late Shri Samrath Lal Sharma,
16/847, Saraswati Nagar, Kayad Road, Ajmer Raj..
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer Raj.
Through Its Registrar.
2. The Vice Chancellor, Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati
University, Ajmer Raj..
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. NK Bhatt
For Respondent(s) : Mr. TS Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
19/08/2021
This review petition has been preferred after a delay of 435
days. An application under section 5 of the Limitation Act has been
moved, however, the reasons given therein are that the petitioners
were collecting the documents which could not be collected in time
and have recently got copy of the judgment dated 23.02.2017 and
therefore they have now filed the review petition.
This court finds that the judgment which the petitioners seek
to review is dated 11.01.2016 and the grounds therefore raised in
the application under Section 5 are wholly flimsy as a judgment of
2017 was not existing at the time when the present judgment in
the review was passed. That apart, the court has noted as under:
(2 of 2) [WRW-169/2017]
"Petitioners have not filed seniority list
to claim benefit of stepping up which otherwise
remains the basis for it. Learned counsel was
asked as to whether petitioner is having the
seniority list so as to be filed. He insisted for
assessment of seniority by this court after
considering the order of appointment of the
petitioners and Mr. Jitendra Goswami. The court
was even incline to grant time to learned counsel
for filing of the seniority list but learned counsel
refused to file copy of the seniority list. In view of
above, I find that the claim has been made based
on the seniority without filing the seniority list."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mistake
was on the part of the counsel who was not able to understand
the query of the court. Seniority lists were existing at that time
and that comparative seniority list was not there. However, this
court finds that even after 11.01.2016 for more than 435 days,
the petitioner has kept silence. If there was seniority list already
existing, the application could have been moved immediately
thereafter seeking a review and also placing the seniority list on
record.
The contentions of the counsel for the petitioner are
therefore, without any basis and are liable to be rejected.
Taking into consideration the documents which are on record
and as there was no seniority list available with the court, no case
for review is made out.
The review petition is therefore dismissed, on the ground of
gross delay and latches as well as on merits.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
CHHAYA AWASTHI /72
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
