Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1006 (MP)

Union of India v. Balbir Singh Sidhu

2011-08-26

SANJAY YADAV

body2011
JUDGMENT Sanjay Yadav, J. I.A. No. 8837/2011 an application for amendment is not pressed; hence, dismissed. By this review petition the petitioners seek review of the order dated 31-08-2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 1453/1998. The said writ petition whereby the petitioner had called in question his supersession to the rank of Second- in-Command was allowed with a direction to the respondents to communicate the entry recorded in A.C.R. of the relevant period taken into consideration by the D.P.C. convened on 11-02-1998 and after considering the same if in case the entries of relevant year are upgraded then his claim for promotion to the post of Second-in- Command from the date when his immediate junior was considered was directed to be considered by holding a review D.P.C. The direction for communication of A.C.R. was apparently on the basis of the decision by the Apex Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India : (2008) 8 SCC 725 and Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India and others : 2009(16) SCC 146 . Review of the order dated 31-08-2010 has been sought on the ground that at the time of argument learned counsel for the respondents (petitioners herein) could not bring to the notice of this Court an order dated 29-03-2010 passed in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 15770/2009 whereby the Supreme Court while keeping in view the apparent conflict between the decision in Dev Dutt v. Union of India: (2008) 8 SCC 725 and Satyanarayan Shukla v. Union of India : (2006) 9 SCC 69 and K. M.Mishra v. Central Bank of India and others : (2008) 9 SCC 120 referred the matter to a larger Bench. Trite it is that an omission to cite authority of law is not a ground for reviewing the prior judgment. In Dokka Samuel v. Dr. Jacob Lazarus Chelly : (1997) 4 SCC 478 , it is observed :- "4. ................. The omission to cite an authority of law is not a ground for reviewing the prior judgment saying that there is an error apparent on the face of the record, since the counsel has committed an error in not bringing to the notice of the court the relevant precedents." In view of above pronouncement of law this Court does not find any force in the review petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.