SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(All) 1324

ASHOK BHUSHAN, ABHINAVA UPADHYA
MAHIMA SRIVASTAVA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
Pankaj Kumar Srivastava for the Appellant; C.S.C. and Ravi Shankar Prasad for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Abhinava Upadhya, J.—This is a review application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and Order 47 Rule 5 of the CPC read with Chapter-V Rule 12 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. The judgment sought to be reviewed has been passed in Special Appeal No. 734 of 2010 by Hon’ble R.K.Agrawal, Abhinava Upadhya, JJ. Justice R.K.Agrawal is no longer a Judge of this Court and, therefore, the matter was placed before us as one of us (Justice Abhinava Upadhya) was also a Member of the earlier Division Bench. The review of the judgment dated 17.5.2010 has been sought on the ground that the said judgment was pronounced relying upon the information from the State authorities which were incorrect and the same came to the light only after judgment was pronounced. Hence the review application.

2. The brief facts are, that the applicant pursuant to an advertisement had applied for Special BTC Training Course of 2008. The applicant applied in prescribed proforma, filling up the form and annexing therewith all the certificates regarding educational qualification. When she did not get any call letter for appearing in the test, she filed Writ Petition No. 8710 of 2010. This Court disposed









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top