K K SHARMA Vs. RAVINDRA NATH GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

(2.) Smt. Sunita Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding interference by this Court at this stage with the order impugned in the present writ petition, which is only an order declaring the vacancy. Smt. Agarwal submitted that in view of the decision reported in, 2000 (2) ARC 446, Achal Misra v. Rama Shankar Singh, particularly Paragraphs 7 and 8, which are reproduced below, wherein the Apex Court has held that in similar set of fact a revision against the order declaring the vacancy is maintainable.

(3.) The aforesaid decision of the Apex Court in fact does not finally decide the controversy as would be clear from Para 8 of the aforesaid judgment, quoted above. In this view of the matter, this writ petition cannot be dismissed on the submissions made by Smt. Sunita Agarwal. However, so far as the question of vacancy is concerned is based on findings arrived at by the authority on facts of the case. Nothing has been brought to the notice of the Court by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the findings arrived at by the authority suffers from any error, much less error apparent on the face of record so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. However, the parties shall bear their own costs.