RAJENDRA BAHADUR BHANDARI Vs. RAJASTHAN STATE AGRICULTURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition seeking review of dismissal of the writ petition by re -calling the judgment dated 9th July, 1992 and for fresh hearing, on the ground that since the Registry failed to attach rejoinder filed by the petitioner on 15.5.1992 with the file of the writ petition, the contents made in pares 4 and 5 of the rejoinder could not Have been brought to the notice of the court there by the court could not have considered significant aspect as it the past practice of the respondent -Board giving benefit of service rendered by a person before acquiring the requisite academic qualification during service tnaura for the purpose of judging his eligibility and on account of that the decision of the Supreme Court in N. Suresth Nathan v. Union of India : AIR1992SC564 has wrongly been applied. In support of his contention as to the review. Mr. Mridul cited the decisions stated herein below. (1) AIR 1965 SC 1576; (2) : (1969)IILLJ651SC ; (3) : [1964]2SCR145 ; (4) : (1981)ILLJ386SC ; (5) : [1985]156ITR509(SC) ; (6) : [1979]3SCR340 ; (7) : [1976]1SCR739 . (8) : AIR1992SC564 (9) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 837 of 1983 G.C. Mathur v. State decided on 29.11.1988.

(2.) AS against this, Shri R.M. Lodha appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 8, vociforce urged that even if it is assumed that the registry failed to attach the rejoinder of the petitioner with the file of his writ petition, and the Court could not take into consideration the contents made therein, then also it cannot be a case of review by the Court inasmuch as the petitioner's counsel himself had not relied upon nor nay arguments was ever made before this Court while the arguments were made on 18.5.1992 nor in the written arguments pointing out or drawing attention to the alleged contents made in Para 4 and 5 of the rejoinder. Mr. R.M. lodha added that no issue was raised relying upon these contents as to the past practice while the hearing of the case was being made. Shri R.M. Lodha cited in his support the following declaration of the supreme Court. (1) A.T. Sharma v. A.P. Sharma AIR 1977 SC P. 1047 (2) Northern India Caterers v. Lt. Governor, Delhi : [1980]2SCR650 .

(3.) I lend support from the decisions referred to by Shri R.M. Lodha which bear sound principles of law on the question of review and hold that the petitioner is not entitled to seek a review of the judgment dismissing his writ petition for the purpose of re -hearing and afresh decision of the case, and he is further not entitled to seek review on the ground that the contents of Paras 4 81 5 of the rejoinder filed by him. alongwith Annexure 10 which were part of the record were not even relied upon nor any question was raised pointing out them during the course of hearing the arguments, by the petitioner.