Review Application No. 364 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Review Application No. 364 of 2009 (O&M)
in CWP No. 17219 of 2007
Date of Decision: October 27 , 2009
Virender Redhu and others ...... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari
Present: Mr.Jagdeep Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners.
***
Ajay Tewari, J.
This review application has been filed as per the order dated
21.8.2009 which is to the following effect:-
“Permission to file SLP is granted.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the observation
of the learned single Judge of the High Court that the
petitioners were recruited by a process which was now under
investigation by the CBI is incorrect as CBI was not seized of
any matter pertaining to the petitioners. We find from the
impugned judgment that this is the primary issue which
weighed with the learned Judge in giving the various
directions. The learned counsel prays that present petition be
dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek a review before the
High Court.
The special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn with
liberty.”
In the review application it has now been stated that CBI was
Review Application No. 364 of 2009 2
not seized of any matter pertaining to the petitioners. It has also been
mentioned that the petitioners are not party in any case pending before any
Court. However, the allegation that the petitioners could not be promoted
because their appointment had been challenged, was made in the impugned
order dated 17.5.2007 in the following terms:-
“Further, it is submitted that selection of 3200 JBT
teachers including the plaintiff who were appointed in
the year 2000 has been challenged and the same is
pending before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.”
No averment was made in the writ petition that in fact, the petitioners’
appointment had not been challenged (as has now been done in the review
application). Further in para 2 of the preliminary submissions in the written
statement dated 28.4.2008 also it was mentioned that the selection of the
petitioners was challenged in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Even uptil the
date of the decision viz. 5.3.2009 no replication was filed controverting this
averment. Even when the judgment was passed in open court this fact was
not denied. As mentioned above it is only in the review application now
that this averment has been made.
Consequently I do not deem it to be appropriate case to exercise
power under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. This review application is dismissed.
Since the review application has been decided, the pending
Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(AJAY TEWARI)
JUDGE
October 27, 2009
sunita