Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1456 (JHR)

Ratan Kumar v. Joackim Toppo

2008-12-16

RAMESH KUMAR MERATHIA

body2008
JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. Both the Civil Review applications are being disposed of by this common order. Civil Review No. 7 of 2008 arises from the order dated 12.9.2008 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2151 of 2005Joackim Toppo etc and Civil Review No. 10 of 2008 arises from the order dated 3.12.2007, passed in W.P.(S) No. 1667 of 2006-Cyprian Prakash Baxla; following the order passed in the case of Joackim Toppo. 2. Mr. A. K. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the review petitioners submitted that by the orders under review this Court directed the respondents to prepare a fresh gradation/seniority list in terms of the notification of the State Government vide Memo No. 1862 dated 31.3.2003; but the said notification dated 31.3.2003 is under challenge before the Division Bench in writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3795 of 2003 Dr. Pravin Shankar & others. He further submitted that the said notification dated 31.3.2003 was issued by the State Government in view of 85th constitutional amendment which was under challenge in the M. Nagraj case (2006) 8 SCC 212 . In the concluding portion of M. Nagraj case, certain guidelines have been given, and in terms thereof, the State Government has constituted a committee for reconsidering the said notification dated 31.3.2003. In these circumstances, he submitted that the orders under review may be recalled and the main writ petitions should be tagged with the writ petition of Dr. Pravin Shankar in which larger issues affecting hundreds of persons are to be decided. 3. Mr. M. S. Anwar, appearing for the writ petitioner Joackim Toppo submitted that as Mr. Toppo has retired, he is not in a position to take advantage of the said order dated 12.9.2007, and therefore, his writ petition and the review petition has become infructuous. He further submitted that the writ petitioner Cyprian Prakash Baxla was senior in the seniority/gradation list prepared before issuance of the said notification dated 31.3.2003, and therefore, the orders under review needs no interference. 4. Mr. Dubey, appearing for interveners in these civil review applications submitted that the orders under review have already been acted upon and before the stay order was passed in these civil review applications, several persons have already been promoted, and therefore, the review petitions have become infructuous. 5. Mr. 4. Mr. Dubey, appearing for interveners in these civil review applications submitted that the orders under review have already been acted upon and before the stay order was passed in these civil review applications, several persons have already been promoted, and therefore, the review petitions have become infructuous. 5. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, appearing for the State submitted that these review applications are not maintainable and are liable to be dismissed. 6. After hearing the parties, I am satisfied that the orders under review should be recalled and the writ petitions be restored to their original file and be tagged with the said W.P.(S) 3795 of 2003. The notification dated 31.3.2003 was issued in terms of 85th constitutional amendment, which is under challenge in W.P.(S) No. 3795 of 2003. The th amendment was also under challenge in the M. Nagraj case in which certain directions have been issued in the concluding portion. All these facts were not brought to the notice of the court, while disposing of writ petitions. It further appears that, a committee has been constituted to reconsider notification dated 31.3.2003 by the Government itself in terms of the M. Nagraj Case. In the circumstances, if the orders under review are allowed to stand, many persons will be adversely affected unheard. 7. In the result, the orders under review are recalled and the writ petitions are restored to their original file. 8. The review petitioners as well as the interveners are impleaded as parties in the main writ petitions as respondents. They and the State are directed to file their respective counter affidavits to the writ petitions within four weeks. 9. Put up the writ petitions along with W.P.(S) No. 3795 of 2003 pending before the Division Bench. The parties will file second copies of the pleadings, if not already filed. 10. The actions taken on the basis of the orders under review shall be kept under abeyance till further orders are passed in the writ petitions. 11. Liberty is given to the parties to pray before appropriate Bench for taking up these writ petitions at an early date. Both the review petitions are accordingly disposed of. However, no costs.