IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Delay Condonation Appn. 3070 / 08 Review Application No. 570 / 08 In Writ Petition No. 34 of 2008 (S/S) Girish Chandra Pant and 23 others . Petitioners ...………… [ Versus S tate of Uttarakhand and others ...…………. Respondents / Review Applicants Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the respondents/ review applicants. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the respondents / applicants on Delay Condonation Application No. 3070 of 2008, for condoning the delay in moving the Review Application M.C.C. No. 570 of 2008 and perused the accompanying affidavit filed along with aforesaid application by the respondents. The grounds shown for delay are found sufficient. Therefore, the delay condonation application is allowed. 2) Also, heard on Review Application M.C.C. No. 570 of 2008, praying review of judgment and order dated 22.04.2008, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 34 (S/S) of 2008. 2 3) The Writ Petition No. 34 (S/S) of 2008 was decided by this Court after hearing the parties at length. The detailed reasons are mentioned in the judgment as to why the writ petition is allowed. The procedure which was prescribed under the police regulations for civil police was made basis for holding examination for the Provincial Armed Constabulary. This Court in said judgment opined that without the authority of law, the promotion prescribed under the rules on the basis of principle of seniority cum unfit, cannot be bypassed. 4) However, as to the reliance placed by this Court in the decision given in the case of Thakur Singh Adhikari and others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others; 2006 (1) U.D. 425, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that judgment in said case was stayed by the Division Bench of this court vide order dated 22.09.2006, passed in Defective Special Appeal No. 73 of 2006. Said fact was not brought to the notice of this Court at the time when the judgment and order dated 22.04.2008 was passed in Writ Petition No. 34 (S/S) of 2008. Therefore, following sentence from Para 11 of the judgment, sought to be reviewed, requires to be deleted – “It appears that the judgment dated 31.03.2006, passed in Writ Petition No. 1615 of 2004 (S/S) in the case of Thakur Singh Adhikari and others (supra) has not been challenged by the State.” In its stead the following sentence is added :- “However, said judgment is of no help to the petitioners as not only said judgment in Thakur Singh 3 Adhikari’s case (supra) is applicable to civil police, but also the said judgment is stayed by the Division Bench of this Court.” 5) The other reasons for allowing the writ petition, in the opinion of this Court, do not require interference under review jurisdiction. 6) Therefore, the review Application M.C.C. No. 570 of 2008 stands disposed of with the modification as mentioned above in Para 11 of the judgment and order dated 22.04.2008, passed by this Court, in Writ Petition No. 34 (S/S) of 2008. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) [ Dt. June 03, 2008. H.Negi