CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

Rashmita Sharma vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 26 May 2011 · Citation: (2011) 05 UK CK 0155

HON’BLE JUDGES
Barin Ghosh, C.J · Servesh Kumar Gupta, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Review Application No. 331 of 2011 and Delay Condonation Application in Review No. 5007 of 2011 in Writ Petition No. 120 of 2005 (S/B)
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 342 words

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—No one is appearing to oppose the application for condonation of delay in preferring the review application. Although, after service of a copy of the application for condonation of delay in preferring the review application, the said application is appearing for the first time today in the list, but since no prayer has been made by anyone indicating that they or any one of them want to file an objection thereto, we have proceeded on the basis that there is no objection to the application for condonation of delay. We have considered the averments made in the application and being satisfied that sufficient reasons have been indicated in the application for condonation of delay in filing the review application, we allow the application for condonation of delay.

2.

We have taken up the review application. Heard learned Counsel for the review application and perused the materials on record.

3.

It appears that review has been sought on the ground that prayer for regularization was not made, whereas the same was directed to be accorded. We have considered the prayers made in the writ petition and we have found that although no specific prayer to that effect was made, but if the prayers are taken into account, it would appear that the real object was to ask for regularization. The other ground is that the writ Petitioner was not an ad hoc employee since after 23.2.2000, and her return on 1.7.2001 could not entail a new ad hoc appointment requiring consideration for regularization. This aspect of the matter has already been taken note of by the Court while rendering the judgment, when the Court proceeded on the basis that the writ Petitioner was accorded a leave for the period 23.2.2000 to 30.6.2001. It has not been shown before us that on the basis of pleadings filed by the parties, the Court could not proceed on the basis that the writ Petitioner was on leave from 23.2.2000 to 30.6.2001. We, accordingly, find no merit in the review application and dismiss the same.