Diksha Chauhan & ANR v. Pt B.D. Sharma University Of Health Science & ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Sr. No.213 CM-18338-CWP-2017 in/and RA-CW-535-2017 IN CWP-22501-2016 Date of Decision:21.10.2024 DIKSHA CHAUHAN & ANR ..APPLICANT-PETITIONERS

VERSUS

PT B.D. SHARMA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE & ORS ...RESPONDENTS

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI

Present:

Mr. Ved Parkash, Advocate for the applicants-petitioners.

Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Amrit Rao, Advocate for respondent No.1-University.

Mr. Gaurav Jindal, Addl. A.G., Haryana JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J.(ORAL) CM-18338-CWP-2017 in RA-CW-535-2017 The present application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 21 days in filing the review application. In view of the averments made in the application, same is allowed and delay of 21 days in filing the review application is condoned. RA-CW-535-2017 IN CWP-22501-2016 The present review application has been filed under Order 47 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 114 & Section 151 CPC as also read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for review/modification of order dated 13.09.2017 (Annexure A-1) passed by this Court. DINESH KUMAR 2024.10.29 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document at the bottom of left side

Learned counsel for the applicants-petitioners submits that at the time when the judgment dated 13.09.2017 (Annexure A-1) was passed, a notification was already issued by the University Grant Commission, New Delhi and the said notification was not brought to the notice of this Court and therefore the aforesaid notification has been attached alongwith the instant application as Annexure A-2.

On the other hand, Mr. Anurag Goyal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1/university submits that the scope of review is very limited and there is no error on the face of the record, the review application is not maintainable and instead of availing appropriate remedy, he has filed the present review application, which is not sustainable. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the only ground which is taken by learned counsel for the applicants-petitioners that notification dated 06.12.2016 (Annexure A-2) was not brought to the notice of the Court when the judgment was passed is unsustainable.

A perusal of the judgment dated 13.09.2017 would show that there is no error in the aforesaid judgment and the scope of review is very limited. Learned counsel for the applicants-petitioners has not been able to make out any ground for review of the aforesaid judgment. Review application is accordingly dismissed.

( JASGURPREET SINGH PURI ) JUDGE 21.10.2024 dinesh Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes/No Whether reportable?

Yes/No DINESH KUMAR 2024.10.29 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document at the bottom of left side