GANJU RAJWAR @ KASHINATH RAJWAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The order dated 16th August, 2017 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1328 of 2016 of which review has been sought reads as under :

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has again sought to argue the case on merits while seeking a review of the order passed by the writ court. However, review is permissible on the grounds as are laid down in Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The principles enshrined there are also followed in general even in writ proceedings. Re-argument on merits is not permissible in review jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any error apparent on the face of the record or that any new document or fact have come to the knowledge which could not be discovered earlier despite due diligence exercised by the applicant. The plea of the applicant for appointment of one Lalji Rajwar, said to be his son, under LARSGESS Scheme (Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff) has been rejected by the respondent-Railways on the ground that the name of father of Sri Lalji Rajwar in the educational certificate (matriculation certificate) did not match with that of the employee Ganju Rajwar. The name of the father as reflected in his matriculation certificate is Kashi Nath Rajwar. Though the applicant was advised orally and through official letters for getting his son's educational certificate corrected in the name of father as Ganju Rajwar, despite ample opportunity and time, he failed to respond to it. The educational certificate of Lalji Rajwar being totally different with that of service book, he could not be offered appointment in lieu of voluntary retirement of Sri Ganju Rajwar. The learned C.A.T did not find any error in the order of rejection and dismissed the O.A. The writ court also held that in state of such disputed identity of the father of the candidate, Lalji Rajwar, the Railways could not be directed to issue appointment to the said person in lieu of the voluntary retirement of the applicant, Ganju Rajwar and accordingly refused to interfere in the impugned decision.