Mrs. Jyotsana v. State of Uttarakhand
Case at a glance
Held
The Court dismissed both review applications, refusing to condone the excessive 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, claiming that the delay in filing the review applications was justified by subsequent Supreme Court decisions. The applications were filed more than four and a half years after the original order.
Issues
- Whether the review applications can be entertained despite the inordinate delay.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to seniority based on the appointment dates of other judges.
Holding
The Court dismissed both review applications, refusing to condone the excessive delay and denying the petitioners’ request for seniority.
Reasoning
The Court held that the delay of 3052 and 3051 days in filing the review applications was inordinate and could not be justified by later Supreme Court judgments. Consequently, the review applications were not entertained, and the petitioners’ request for seniority was denied.
Practical significance
The judgment reinforces that review applications must be filed within a reasonable time and that later Supreme Court decisions do not automatically excuse substantial delays. It also clarifies that seniority cannot be granted retroactively based on unrelated 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 excessive 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.