Mrs. Jyotsana v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
Case at a glance
Held
The Court dismissed both review applications, refusing to condone the delay and denying the petitioners’ request for seniority.
Provisions considered
Summary
AI-generated summaryWritten by AI from the judgment text below. It is not part of the judgment and is not legal advice — read the original before relying on it.
Facts
The petitioners sought review of an earlier order of the Division Bench dated 29.10.2010, arguing that the delay in filing the review applications was justified. The applications were filed more than four and a half years after the earlier order and after a Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether the review applications can be entertained despite the inordinate delay.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to seniority based on their appointments as Civil Judges.
Holding
The Court dismissed both review applications, refusing to condone the delay and denying the petitioners’ request for seniority.
Reasoning
The Court held that the delay of 3052 and 3051 days in preferring the review applications was inordinate and could not be justified. Consequently, the review applications were dismissed and the petitioners’ request for seniority was denied.
Practical significance
The decision underscores that the High Court will not condone excessive delays in filing review applications and that appointments as Civil Judges do not automatically confer seniority over earlier appointments.
Judgment
Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, learned counsel for the review applicant in both the writ petitions. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for the petitioner in WPSB No. 84 of 2009. Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned Standing Counsel for the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. Dated: 30th April, 2019 Chronological list of cases referred:
2. 3.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court dismissed both review applications, refusing to condone the delay and denying the petitioners’ request for seniority.
What was the main issue before the Court?
Whether the review applications can be entertained despite the inordinate delay.
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Uttarakhand High Court, on 30 Apr 2019. The bench was N S DHANIK, RAMESH RANGANATHAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.