Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/1580/2019 on 9 January, 2023
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
Review applications (MCC Nos.9401, 9440, 10205, 9437, 9434, 9433, 9419,
9412, 9435, 9411, 9407, 9403, 9415, 9423, 9436, 9420, 9409 all of 2022)
With
Delay condonation appln. (IA Nos.9402, 9441, 10206, 9438, 9435, 9434, 9420,
9413, 9436, 9412, 9408, 9404, 9416, 9424, 9437, 9421, 9410 all of 2022)
In
WPMS Nos.1580, 1584, 1586, 1587, 1589, 1591, 1593,
1594, 1598, 1611, 1613, 1615, 1616, 1617, 1624, 1626,
1636 all of 2019
Hon'ble Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.
Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta and Mr. Ravi Sehgal,
learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Yogesh Pandey, learned Addl. C.S.C. for
the State.
Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned Standing Counsel
for the Union of India.
By filing this bunch of review applications, the
State of Uttarakhand has prayed for review of the
order dated 20.08.2019. There is a delay of 994 days
in preferring the review applications, which has not
been properly explained. The only statement that is
given by the learned counsel for the State is that the
application was filed with a delay of about three
years which occurred due to obtaining opinion from
the different Departments and it resulted in delay in
preferring the review applications. However, such
grounds are not tenable to condone the delay.
Moreover, the State has filed this application
under a misconception. The order was passed by the
learned Coordinate Bench of this Court holding that
the operative portion of the judgment and order
dated 31.07.2019 passed in SPA No.224 of 2019 and
other connected matters so far as the statement of
learned counsel for the State was concerned that it
shall be giving the appointment within two months,
will not apply in the present case strictly speaking,
but would apply as and when each of the petitioner
would be completing their post-graduation course.
The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court
that disposed of the writ petitions in terms of the
judgment and order dated 31.07.2019 passed by the
Division Bench of this Court in SPA No.224 of 2019
and other connected matters.
Learned counsel for the State would submit
that in paragraph 30 of the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court, in the aforesaid special appeal,
has held that in case the respondents-writ petitioners
were willing to serve in the hilly and rural areas of
the State of Uttarakhand, it is open to them to join
duty in terms of the offer of employment to be made
by the State Government. In case the respondents-
writ petitioners do not wish to execute such an
option, and do not join duty within the time
stipulated in the order to be made by the appellants-
State, it is open to the State Government to recover
the differential fee amount, (i.e. Rs. 2,20,000 minus
Rs. 15,000/- per annum for students who secured
admission in the year 2011-12, and Rs. 4,00,000/-
minus Rs. 40,000/- per annum for students who
secured admission in the year 2013-14), along with
interest at 18% per annum.
The State is aggrieved by the fact that in 2017
the security amount of Rs.15 lakhs was raised to
Rs.2.5 crore and by virtue of this order, the State is
unable to execute the same.
Such argument is fallacious in the fact that as
per the order dated 31.07.2019 the Division Bench
of this Court in the aforesaid Special Appeals never
passed an order about the students taking admission
after the year 2013-14.
In that view of the matter there is no need to
review the order passed by learned Coordinate
Bench of this Court. Therefore, all the review and
delay condonation applications are therefore,
disposed of.
All pending applications stand disposed of.
(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.)
09.01.2023
BS
