1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6388/2002. : : Dr. Mohan Lal Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 20.3.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Ms. Neetu Bhansali for Mr. S. K. Jindal for the petitioner. Mr. Zakir Hussain, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by order of reversion dated 5.9.2002. 3. Ms. Neetu Bhansali, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner was duly promoted by order of respondents dated 15.10.2001 (Annex.3). This order of promotion was passed regarding large number of medical officers consequent upon review DPC for the vacancies of year from 1988-89 to 1995-96. Name of petitioner in this order was at serial No.495. Subsequently, by order 5.9.2002 petitioner was reverted. It is contended that this order was 2 passed without any opportunity of hearing or without any notice. The writ petition therefore be allowed. 4. The respondents in reply to the writ petition have clarified that name of petitioner included by mistake, there is one another doctor namely; Dr. Mohan Lal Meena, who in fact was considered for promotion and it was for him that the order of promotion was meant to be passed but by mistake the name of petitioner was included. It was a bonafide mistake which was corrected, therefore, the writ petition be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rejoined and submitted that specific order was passed by Government on 17.8.2001 for review DPC and case of the petitioner was considered for review DPC. Petitioner was allowed to continue about ten months on the post of promotion. Review DPC was convened and by order dated 17.8.2001 he has been promoted against the quota of 1995-96 and, therefore, subsequently he could not be reverted. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that petitioner 3 although has assailed the order of reversion but has not given any material particulars to substantiate the plea that his case was actually considered by review DPC against the earlier vacancies. No details have been given that any junior to him of SC category was promoted. In the absence of such details, the plea that has been set up by respondents that it was a case of bonafide mistake has to be accepted as bonafide. Mere non-service of notice prior to passing of order would not be fatal in the peculiar facts of the case to the validity of the impugned order. Because, by virtue of doctrine of useless formalities, even if it were to be held that notice be now given to the petitioners, he would in any case is not in position to substantiate his claim that he should be granted promotion on out of turn basis ignoring the claim of many of seniors or that even if order was passed by mistake, it should be continued. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.39.