HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI)
1. The matter is heard for quite long.
2. The present LPA is filed by one Shri M.M.Lahori, who was Senior Assistant Director in Forensic Science Laboratory, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar, being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 03.11.2012, whereby the learned Single Judge (Coram: Hon ble Mr.Justice J.B.Pardiwala) rejected the review application by a well considered order, setting out scope of review and also setting out the judgments in support of his view that review is not maintainable.
3. At this juncture, it will be appropriate to reproduce the observations made by the learned Single Judge which are relevant for our purpose also because we also felt the same difficulty:-
I requested the applicant party-in-person to point out any palpable error apparent on the face of the order so that this Court may look into the same and decide the present Application.
I had to specifically ask this question to the applicant party-in-person as the pleadings in the Application for Review are extremely poor and it was very difficult to understand as to what the applicant wanted to convey (emphasis supplied) 3.1 In the present LPA also, the same difficulty we are experiencing. The LPA is filed only against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in review application and the order passed by the learned Single Judge in SCA No.2056 of 2007 and analogous petitions, disposed of by common judgment and order dated 14.10.2011 is not even produced along with this LPA.
3.2 On inquiry, Party-in-Person conveyed to us that in the year 1991, there met first DPC, wherein his case for promotion to the post of Deputy Director from the post of Assistant Director was considered. It is also disclosed by the Party-in-Person that criteria for promotion to the post of Deputy Director from Assistant Director is merit-cum-seniority. Though he was not considered favourably in the year 1991, he did not challenge that action of not promoting him by filing any SCA. His case is that as there was SCA No.8322 of 1988 already pending, he was not required to file any petition. We inquired from the Party-in-Person as to how come a grievance of not promoting in the year 1991 can be agitated in a petition which was filed in the year 1988. Party-in-Person is not able to satisfactorily explain to us. He only repeated that his case was pending before the High Court and therefore, he was not required to file a fresh petition.
3.3 Thereafter, we inquired about the second DPC. Party-in-Person stated that on 29.08.1993, second DPC met and in that second DPS also, he was not selected. Again the same difficulty. That decision is also not challenged by filing any fresh petition.
3.4 Last but not the least, on 12.10.1995, third DPC met, in which also, he was not selected. The petitioner Party-in-Person is now before this Court for all those non-promotion.
3.5 At this juncture, it will be important to put it on record that Party-in-Person retired in the year 1996, in the month of September 1996. Since then, he is pursing these proceedings before this Court. He is arguing all these matters Party-in-Person and is placing all variety of papers including judgments of the High Court as well as of the Hon ble the Supreme Court, which makes the task of the Court still difficult.
4. The Court is not able to accept any of the contentions raised in LPA. The LPA is dismissed.
(RAVI R.TRIPATHI, J.) (MOHINDER PAL, J.) Mr.M.M.Lahori, party-in-person was heard at length in the morning. An order dismissing the appeal was passed. At the fag-end of the day, the appellant party-in-person mentioned the matter and stated that he was given assistance of learned advocate Mr.A.S.Asthavadi. The party-in-person cannot have best of both the worlds and cannot be allowed to have two innings. After having argued the matter at length, there is no question of now acceding to his request and give any adjournment. Order passed in the morning is maintained.
(RAVI R.TRIPATHI, J.) (MOHINDER PAL, J.) *Shitole Page 5 of 5