'c^ 1^3'j fSTC [H- '^^"^ j APPL1 REVIEW PETITION No. 85 of 2007 A'ihlam Khaa S/o Late Fiyaz Khan, ass - 49 years, R'o Poliee Liiie, Talisil Distt. Bilaspur 'C.G.') .Ji:' JT5j Vf 1. XJnion of Ittdia, friroueh Seeretan'- Department of Persoimel aiid Traiimig. Govcnuneiit of India, New Delhi. 2. Director, Depaftinent of Persor.iiel and Traming- Govemment oflndia, New Deihi. 3. State of Cliliattisgarh, tiirougli Secretan'', Department of Home, Dau Kalyan Singli Bhawaii, Raipur (C.G.) 4. State of Madhya Pradesh, through the Secretarv. Deoartaieat of Home, Vallabh Bhawaii. Bhopal, M.P. 5. Seeretaiy, State Reorgaiiization Cell, Departaient of Gen. & Adnm. Govemnient of Madhya Pradesh, Vallabh Bhawaii, Bhopal, p 6. Director of Public Instruetion, Madhya Pradesh, Gautam Nagac, Bhopal. 7. Director of Public Instruction, Clihattisgarh, Peiision Bada, Raipur, (C.G.) 8. Superintendent of Police, Distt. Bilaspur FRAYER FOR REVIEW OF THE ORDER DATED 27.06.2007 PASSED BY THE HON-BLE JUSTICEiSHPJ ATISH AGNfflOTRI IN WRTT PETm< N0. 3599/2007. SB: Shri K. Present: Shi-i Ravish Verma, Advocate tbr the appiicant. , Slii-i S.K.Beriwal, Stauding Couiisel for the Union oflndia.' non-appiicant No. 1 and 2. Smt. Beeau Shanna, Patiel Lawyer for the State/non-applicant No. 4. 7 and 8. 1. I'P.accayl nn n'7tli .>la.i7,-n'''Tannan; ^nfSS'! ij7£l;3^S;U Uil V ^ v'taj'; ul */tiii^<.^i Y.) -i-WO^ I.A.No. 1. Tliis is an application for condonation of delay. The application is ordered as prayed for. The applicant has filed tliis review petition seeking review ofthe order dated 27"<1 June, 2007 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3599/2007 (Ashiaiii Khan Vs. Union of India & Ofhers). The applicant preferred a writ appeal before the Division Bench beins number W.A (P.R.) 5847;2007. The ieamed Division Bench, after havina recorded the siibmission of the applicant to the efiect that he raised number of ffTi te-grounds iii the v/iit petition which were not coasidered by the Sing!e Judge, permitted the applicant;oii his request, to withdraw the appeal. Hence this petition. 2. The main ground ofthe applicant'in the review petition are as imder; "A. Because the writ petition No. 3599/2007 is disposed-off in limine without going iiito the merits of the case, which is coatrar;/ to ths various decisio'is given by tlie Hon'ble Apex ^-/UUl L. 'i. Bscause the representation regarding alloeation .has not been properly finalizsd by the appropriate authority, which was submitted as per the direction of fhe Hon'ble Court and later on direction given by the Union oflndia, which failed to conclude. C. Because the Hon'ble Division Bench has directed to file review petition, \-vhich may kindly be considered and appropriate reasoned order shouid be passed, in the mterest of justice and law. D. Because tiie writ petition No. 3599/2007, is decided withoirt going through fhe records submitted by the petitioner, wSiich is not taken iiito considsration. E. Because tlie petitioner has submittea preference to the Wate of Madhya Pradesh, as he is residait of L1]jam Citv, which is not properiy decided. F. An afBdavit in support ofthis application/'pstition is being filed." 3. On perosal ofthe order, it is evident that ths Court has decliaed to isterfere with the order of allocation after havin.s coiisidered all the aspects of the matter. Leamed counsel for the petitionsr submits that tft'.r..-, 3 "SsaSRh 8 I "l»wB3t J v v^y '^^. T' ..ri^ tliis Court has not considered the fact that the petitioner was residei^ ofDistrict L!]jain and he has made a rspresentation on the said sround, •n'hich v/as not considered bv ffae authorities before aliocating the applicact to the State ofCUiattisearh. 4. On reading ofthe judgmait and order, it appears that this ver\' ground was coasidered and t'ns order was passed oa the gi-ound Cnat no irregiuarity, illegality, discrimination or um'sasoaableness was found in the order passed by the respondent No. 1 and 2. The applicant has failed to point out any error apparent 021 the face of the record. The applicaiTt has &rther not made out a case that he has discovered sometliing new which he could not produce with due diligeace at the time offiaal hearing. 5. Bv this Detitioa, the applicant seeks rs-hearms ofthe case which is cot penrissible. All the argiiments raised by the applicant have been considered before the order dated 27.06.2007 was passed. 6. In view ofthe foregoing, this petition is dismissed accoriingly. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge