Uttarakhand High Court
Angad Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 13 July, 2021
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Delay Condonation Application (IA) No.7529 of 2021
IN
Review Application (MCC) No.7528 of 2021
IN
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 270 of 2020
Angad Singh ...........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ...........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner/review applicant.
Mr. B.P.S. Mer, Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Jayvardhan Kandpal, Advocate for respondent no.4.
Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.
Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Writ Petition (S/B) No.270 of 2020, Angad Singh vs. State of
Uttarakhand and others(" the writ petition") was filed by the petitioner seeking the
following reliefs:-
"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the official Respondents to examine the validity of
B.Tech. degrees obtained by the private Respondents in terms of
Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Orissa
Life Irrigation Corporation Limited Versus Rabi Sankar Patro and
others reported in (2018) 1 SCC page 468 and consequently cancel
the out of turn promotion given to the private Respondents on the
basis of invalid degree vide order dated 28th January 2013 and
further to give promotion to the eligible candidates including the
Petitioner from the date when the private Respondents were given
out of turn promotion."
II. Issue any suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper on the basis of the facts and
circumstances of the case.
III. Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner."
3. On 26.11.2020, the writ petition was dismissed by the Court
observing as hereunder:-
"On hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view
that the relief sought for by the petitioner falls within the jurisdiction of
the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal. The Tribunal has the
jurisdiction to entertain such matters. Therefore, in view of the availability
of an alternative and efficacious remedy, it is inappropriate on our part to
entertain this writ petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed on this
ground."
4. Now, the petitioner has filed a delay condonation application as well
as an application for recalling or reviewing the order dated 26.11.2020, passed in
the writ petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.
6. According to the delay condonation application the petitioner retired
from service in the meantime and went to his native village, which is in the state
of Uttar Pradesh, it occasioned delay in filing recall/review application.
7. Having considered I'm of the view that there are sufficient grounds to
condone the delay. Hence, delay in filing the application is condoned. Delay
condonation application (IANo.2529 of 2021) is allowed accordingly.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, in fact, the writ
petition was filed not only for seeking relief for promotion, but also for a
mandamus directing respondents to decide the representation filed by the
petitioner.
9. The Court posed a question to the learned counsel for the petitioner
that; is there any error in the judgment, which is sought to be reviewed or
recalled? To it, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, as such, there
is no error in the judgment which is sought to be reviewed or recalled.
10. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner. There appears to be no such error in the judgment dated 26-11-2020,
which may require review or recall of it. Therefore the review application is liable
to be dismissed.
11. The review application (MCC No.7528 of 2021) is dismissed.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
13.07.2021
Sanjay
