WPSB/276/2016 of Dr Aakansha Prakash Ojha Vs Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd AND OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CLMA Delay Condonation Application No. 11168 of 2016 MCC REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 717 OF 2016 IN

WRIT PETITION (SB) No. 276 of 2016

Dr. Aakansha Prakash Ojha

……Petitioner

Versus

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and others. ……Respondents.

Mr. Shashank Pandey, Advocate for the review petitioner / petitioner. Mr. S.K. Jain, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Siddharth Jain, Advocate for the respondents.

Dated: 21.11.2016

Hon’ble K.M. Joseph, C.J.Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on the Application for condonation of delay.

2. In the circumstances, the Application for condonation of delay stands allowed and the delay in filing the Review Application stands condoned.

3. The review petitioner is the writ petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the review petitioner Mr. Shashank Pandey would submit that the principle that contractual employee cannot be replaced by another contractual employee has been observed in its breach by the action, which was impugned in the writ petition, but still the Court did not grant the reliefs.

5. This is case, where the review petitioner, in the first place is sought to be represented by counsel, who did not argue the writ petition as admittedly it was someone else, who argued the writ petition. Secondly, whatever that be, it is to be noted that the review petitioner had participated in the process and the party respondent was found more meritorious, and she was selected. No doubt, the learned counsel for the review petitioner would submit that the principle that contractual employee cannot be replaced by another contractual

employee has received the attention at the hands of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others reported in AIR 1992 SC 2130; Secretary, State of Karananatka vs. Umadevi & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1; and at the hands of the Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in Abhinav Chaudhary and others. vs. Delhi Technological University and another (W.P. (C) Nos. 3512 / 2014 & 3834 /2014, decided on January 20, 2015). We would think that in the facts of this case, where the appellant has himself participated in the selection process and, then, turns around and seeks to challenge the advertisement and the selection process, he should not be permitted to do so. It appears that the review petitioner has attempted re-hearing of the writ petition, which we cannot permit. Consequently, the review petition fails and the same is dismissed.

Rathour

(V.K. Bist, J.) 21.11.2016 21.11.2016

(K.M. Joseph, C.J.)