SANJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, in the present application is seeking review of an order passed by this Court dated 18.09.2020 in C.W.J.C. No. 7750 of 2020 whereby his writ application was dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner had approached this Court by way of aforementioned writ application, seeking quashing of an order dated 26.08.2019 whereby his candidature for selection against the post of Motor vehicle Inspector made in pursuance of Advertisement No. 2607 dated 01.08.2007 was cancelled. The dispute, which the writ petition involved, has been mentioned in paragraph 3 of the order under review. It is evident from the said paragraph that apart from minimum eligibility of educational and technical qualification, the Advertisement No. 2607 dated 01.08.2007 required that a candidate for the post must have the work experience of repair, overhauling and inspection in a Workshop registered under the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') engaged in the business of repair of light and heavy motor vehicles etc. The Court had noted that the only question which warranted determination in the writ application was, as to whether, the petitioner had been able to make out a case that the Workshop, in which, the petitioner claimed to have worked in support of his work experience, was registered under the Act, during the period when the petitioner claimed to have acquired the desired experience. This Court upon examination of the materials on record and submissions advanced on behalf of the parties recorded that there was no convincing material at all to show that registration of the Workshop in question namely Sarvoday Engineering Works and Auto Servicing was subsisting or renewed for the calendar year 2001, 2002 and 2003. It is to be noticed that it was contended on behalf of the petitioner in the writ proceeding that one Dilip Kumar had also submitted his work experience certificate issued by the same Workshop, which was accepted as valid for the purpose of fulfilling the qualification prescribed in the advertisement. Dealing with the said contention of the petitioner, this Court had recorded following findings in paragraph 8:-

(3.) It has been stated in the review application that on 18.09.2020, a supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner and a short adjournment was sought, so that the certificate of registration of the firm in question (Sarvoday Engineering Works and Auto Servicing) for the calendar years 2001, 2002 and 2003 (wrongly typed as 2002) might be brought on record. However, the writ application was dismissed on merit on the same day i.e. 18.09.2020. It is the petitioner's case that non consideration of supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner has resulted in dismissal of the connected writ petition. With the review application, a copy of the supplementary affidavit said to have been filed on behalf of the petitioner, has been brought on record.