Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2143 (HP)

Meenakshi Mahajan v. State of H. P.

2016-10-03

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Petitioner, by the medium of this Review Petition, is seeking review of the judgment dated 23.7.2013 (CWP No. 5187 of 2010, titled Dr. Meenakshi Mahajan versus State of H.P. and others) made by this Court in a batch of writ petitions lead case of which is CWP No.209 of 2010, whereby two writ petitions i.e. CWP No. 209 of 2010 titled Desh Bandhu Sood versus State of HP and others and CWP No. 5187 of 2010 titled Dr. Meenakshi Mahajan versus State of HP and others, came to be dismissed and CWP No. 4656 of 2010, filed by Dr. Aparna Sharma, was allowed, with the command to offer her appointment. 2. Petitioner Desh Bandhu Sood in CWP No. 209 of 2010, has not sought review of the judgment, only Dr. Meenakshi Mahajan in CWP No. 5187 of 2010 has sought review of the impugned judgment on the grounds taken therein. 3. The only ground projected is that the petitioner Dr. Aparna Sharma was also not eligible to be appointed as Deputy Director, DNA. The review petitioner has also placed certain documents on record. The document placed at page 86 does disclose that the benefits granted, were not drawn and received by Dr. Aparna Sharma, for the reasons best known to her. It is also not known whether she had complied with the terms and conditions contained in the documents at pages 28 and 86 of the paper-book. 4. At this stage, Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Additional Advocate General stated at the Bar that Dr. Aparna Sharma has not taken any benefit in terms of the directions contained in the judgment under review, for the reasons that she joined on 3.8.2013 but withdrew her joining on 27.8.2013. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of para 1 of the reply on preliminary submissions, filed by the respondent No.1 herein. “1……… Thereafter, the respondent No.3 Dr. Aparna Sharma submitted her joining report on 3.8.2013. However, the respondent No.- 3 Dr. Aparna Sharma later on withdrew her joining on 27.8.2013 and requested to allow her to continue in her previous post, i.e., Assistant Director (DNA), copy annexed as Annexure-R-1…………..” 5. Thus, it can be safely said that Dr. Aparna Sharma has given her claim for the reasons best known to her. 6. However, the respondent No.- 3 Dr. Aparna Sharma later on withdrew her joining on 27.8.2013 and requested to allow her to continue in her previous post, i.e., Assistant Director (DNA), copy annexed as Annexure-R-1…………..” 5. Thus, it can be safely said that Dr. Aparna Sharma has given her claim for the reasons best known to her. 6. Learned counsel for the review petitioner stated that the observations made in the judgment under review be not read against the petitioner. Though her petition was dismissed holding that she was not eligible but only in terms of last lines of para 6 of the judgment, it was observed that in case Dr. Aparna Sharma was to be appointed against the post of Deputy Director, DNA, it would result in blocking the prospects of review petitioner for future. The writ petition was dismissed on merit. 7. While going through the judgment under review and the documents on the file, particularly reply filed by respondent No.1, it appears that the concerned department has to go for fresh selection process. 8. Keeping in view the above said facts, it can be safely said that the judgment under review will not, in any way, affect the review petitioner. 9. The Review petition is accordingly, disposed of along with pending applications, if any.