Bimalendra Kumar Mishra vs Ravindra Nath Sen

Mr. Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - Civil Review No. 75/2015

Review petitioner was the Respondents in WPS No. 4610/2012 who has sought review of the judgment dated 11.09.2012 passed in the said case, which reads as under:

"Present petition is filed seeking the writ of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to declare the results of the petitioner for the recruitment to the post of Survey Officer - post no. - 2008/D-9 vide Office Memorandum No.- PLRAdv./2008/1675 dated November 21, 2008 in the D.V.C. Bermo Mines for which petitioner was interviewed on 31.03.2009.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that result has not been declared as yet.

In the opinion of this Court, interest of justice will be served, if a direction is issued to the respondents to declare the result of the examination.

Accordingly, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to declare the results of Survey Officer, preferably within 90 days from today."

Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits by referring to the contents of the petition that as a matter of fact, order dated 11.09.2012 was passed on the first date and the stand of the Respondent - Damodar Valley Corporation was not on record. It has so transpired that internal advertisement of 21.11.2008 in which the petitioner participated in interview as only candidate for promotion to the post of Survey Officer, was never proceeded and concluded. It is their case that interview was held on 31.03.2009, but the process was aborted. It is their case that the Respondents/Review Petitioner - Damodar Valley Corporation has chosen to fill up the post of Survey Officer through direct recruitment by open advertisement and not through internal departmental exam/interview. In such circumstances, on the date on which writ petition was disposed of, the aforesaid state of facts could not be brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the review petitioner seek recall of the said order.

Counsel for the writ petitioner/Respondent No. 1 herein, submits that the remedy of the review petitioner, if aggrieved by the impugned order, lies elsewhere in appeal as there is no infirmity warranting recall of the order passed in the writ petition. He however does not dispute the contention on facts that the recruitment process of Survey Officer through internal advertisement, was never taken to its logical conclusion.

Having considered the rival pleas of the parties, this Court is satisfied that in absence of the stand of the Respondents in the writ petition, direction to declare the result of the internal recruitment exercise for the post of Survey Officer, were issued which, as a matter of fact, could not be acted upon as the process itself had been aborted. The stand of the Respondent/Review Petitioner have been brought on record in the present review petition. Therefore, it will be in the interest of justice that such direction be recalled as it would not be an effective direction in the wake of the process of internal recruitment being aborted. Therefore, review petition is allowed. The direction passed in the writ petition vide order dated 11.09.2012 needs to be recalled and it is accordingly recalled.

Cont. Case (Civil) No. 153/2013

In view of the order passed in the review petition, no case of contempt survives. Accordingly, contempt petition is disposed of. Proceedings are dropped.