RANCHI Vs. JITESH ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment dated 10.9.2012 passed in W.P.(S) No. 4828 of 2012 of which review has been sought for reads as under:

(2.) THE petitioner has filed an affidavit of his father that Mahesh Arora alias Mahesh Kumar Arora is one and the same person. The father of the petitioner got it published in the newspapers that Mahesh Arora alias Mahesh Kumar Arora is one and the same person. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record, I am of the opinion that joining should not be denied to the petitioner on the hyper -technical ground that the fathers name of the petitioner was initially mentioned as ,,Mahesh Aroa, while the correct name of his father is ,,Mahesh Kumar Arora. There seems to be no dispute about the identity of the petitioner or his father. In the absence of any dispute pertaining to the identity of the petitioner or his father refusal to give joining on the hypothetical and technical ground seems to be totally unjustified and arbitrary.

(3.) THE respondents Central Coalfields Ltd. has preferred this review petition stating that the writ petition was allowed in the very first instance without giving opportunity to the respondent/writ petitioner, herein, to put forth his stand. The reading of the judgment dated 10.09.2012 indicates that the judgment was passed in presence of the parties including the present petitioner. Learned Single Judge after hearing the parties found that the respondents despite offering appointment letter to the writ petitioner were not allowing him to join on hyper -technical ground that the father's name of the petitioner initially mentioned was 'Mahesh Arora' while the correct name of his father is 'Mahesh Kumar Arora'. Learned Single Judge also observed that there is no dispute about the identity of the petitioner or his father. In such circumstances, the writ petition was allowed by directing the respondents to give joining to the petitioner within a stipulated time as there did not appear any dispute pertaining to identity of the petitioner or his father. At the same time, the perusal of the annexure contained in the writ petition also discloses that relevant documents were already on the record for the learned Single Judge to make an observation to the effect while passing the judgment. The petitioners herein have not made any case that there is dispute relating to the identity of the petitioner or his father. During the course of submission, a plea has been taken that the writ petitioner was required to produce a proper certificate regarding correction of the name of his father by the concerned issuing authority.