HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISOARH: BILA8PUR Ssa^e Beaelt: Hoa'ble Sbxi Satisfa K. A©ii!iotri,J. 8e"iCTr "etitioa Nc.ll of 2QQ8 Petitioner Gauri Shaaker Sharma, S/o Shri Uaslu-ath Siiamia, agcd about 67 ycars, Retircd Lecturer (Vice Principal), Resident of Brahmaa Para, Gaadhi Chowk, Ward No,33, District Kajnandgaon (CU}. Respondents Versus : 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretaiy, School Education DepartDient, Mantralaya, DKS Dhnwan, Raipur (CG). 2. Director of Public Instructions, Ctihattisgarti, Oa^Ton Bazar, Raipiir (C.G.). 3. The District Education Officer, Distri.et Rajnandgaoa (CG). 4. Joint Dircctor, 'l'rcasury, Accounts and Pensions, Raipur (CG). KEVIEW PETITON UNDER CHAPTER -VI RULE 75/76 OF THE HSGH COUK'l' 01'' CHHA'n'lSUAKH KULBS. 2005 Shri Rakesh Anfhony, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri U. W. S. Uco, Uovt. Advocate for tjic rcapondcnts. >RD®S ( Passed on this 3rd day ofnaarcb, 2008) 1. With the consent ofthe parties the matteris heard Sualfy. 2. The petifioner seeks review oftlie orrier rlated 28ttl Jamiaiy, 2008, passed by this Coui-t in Writ Petition(8) No. 574 of 2008 (Gauri Shaiikar Sharma Vs. The State of GhhattisgaA & othera). 3. Shri Rakesh Anthony, teamed counsel appeariag for the petitiouer submits (hat the petitioner is entitled to secoad krimonaati after a period of eight years on the basis ofthe time bound advaucemeut sch.eme dated 21.3.1983. Thereafter one more circular, accoidmg to leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, was issued on 10.12.198-1. 3E8 y~ 4. The State Goveminent had rcpealed the earlier circulars and passed uew circulars dated 17.3.1999/19.4.1999 aad circular dated 24.4.2006, wherein it is clearty provided that au employee is entifled to first krfmoEmati after compktion of 12 yeara and tiiereafter second kritnoiuiati after compfetion of 24 years of service, sn the event he could not get the chaace of promoti.on. ReUance of the petitiouer on the old circular, which adinittedfy, is not in existence today, is not tenable. 5. Leamed counsel appearfag for the petitioner submits that since the first krmiomiati was graated on the basis of the circular dated 21.3.1983, the secoud krimoiuiati uiay also be graated on the basis of fhe sam.e cu-cular, may be the said circular is modified or superseded. The contention of leamed counsel is not tenabte as flie services of fhe petitioner shaU be govenied by the present circulars, not the old circulai's, which have been subsequently inodt&ed or supeiseded. 6. In view of tiie foregoiug, fhere is no appareat error on the face of record iu the order and secoadly, there is no subsequent discoveiy ofa docuiaent/circular after due diligeace or any ofher irtcgularity lias been uoticed, which could not be poiuted out at the tune of hearing of such petitioii. 7. The order dated 28.1.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.$S) No. 574 of 2008 is just and proper aad does not require any review, as fhe sasne is based on the basis ofthe prevalent circulara, not on the basis offhe oM. circular, which stands modiGed/auperseded by fhe subsequent circulars. 8. Ia view ofthe above fhis petition. stands disposed of. Thakur Satis.*^WBh°tri 3ud&e