IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Civil Review No. 143 of 2009
Prafulla Pandey ...... Petitioner
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar.
2. The Chief Conservator of ForestcumManaging Director,
Bihar State Forest Development Corporation Ltd, Patna.
3. The Commissioner, Forest and Environment
Development, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Chairman, Department of Finance, Bureau
of Public Enterprises, Patna.
5. The General Manager, Minor Forest Produce
Project Circle, Ranchi.
6. The Chief Conservator of ForestcumManaging
Director, Jharkhand State Forest Development
Corporation Ltd., Ranchi …… Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kaushalendra Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. A.K. Pandey, Advocate
04/Dated: 17 May, 2010
th
1. The present civil review petition has been preferred for review of an
order, passed by this Court, dated 17th April, 2009 in I.A. No. 1056 of
2009 with W.P.(S) No. 1087 of 2009.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while finally
disposing of the writ petition as well as the aforesaid interlocutory
application, it has been observed in paragraph no. 3, which are
arguments canvassed by the respondents that a counter affidavit has
been filed, but, in fact, there is no counter affidavit; and learned counsel
for the petitioner has argued out again the case, in detail.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who has
submitted that in paragraph no. 3 what are stated, are nothing, but, the
arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondents. But,
in fact, the order starts from paragraph no. 4 onwards and there is no
error in paragraph no. 4 onwards of the order dated 17th April, 2009 and
therefore, so far as the counter affidavit is concerned, paragraph no. 3
may be corrected that there is no counter affidavit, filed by the
respondents otherwise, the order, passed by this Court is absolutely
true, correct and in consonance with the facts and law.
4. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the
facts and circumstances of the case, it has been stated in 1st line of
paragraph no. 3 of the impugned order dated 17th April, 2009 that the
respondents have submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed, but,
2.
in fact, there is no counter affidavit and therefore, 1st line of paragraph
no. 3 of the impugned order dated 17th April, 2009 will now be read as
under:
“I have heard counsel for the respondents, who have
submitted that the petitioner was never appointed on the post of
Administrative Officer even as per Annexure1 to the memo of the
petition”.
The aforesaid sentence will be replaced in place of original 1st line
of paragraph no. 3 of the impugned order dated 17th April, 2009.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this
Court at Annexure15 whereby, as he has tried to assert that he was
already promoted to the post of Administrative Officer in the year, 2002,
but, looking to office order at Annexure1 dated 25th June, 1986, to the
memo of the petition, the petitioner was not appointed as Administrative
Officer, but, it has been stated in the office order that the post of
Administrative Officer was vacant and therefore, the petitioner was given
the post of Office Superintendent. Looking to the aforesaid office order
at Annexure1, I am not inclined to take any other view, than which has
already been taken on 17th April, 2009. In fact, there is no error from
paragraph no. 4 onwards of the impugned order.
6. There is no substance in this civil review petition, hence, the same
is hereby, dismissed.
(D.N. Patel, J.)
VK