^- •fe. ^ •A<> Beecft JN THE HiGH COURT OF JuDICATURE OF CHHATTiSGARH, BiLASPUR (C.G.) M.C.C. No. ^ CY 72005 APPLICANT : -'JITENDRA SENGH THAKUR, Aged about 41 years, S/o. Late Shri R.S. Thakur, R/o. Tilak Nagar, Bllaspur, in front of Dr. Devras Residence, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur (C6) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^K ....-•;^y ^>y y 1}/ STATE OF CHHATTiSGARH, Through - Secretary, Finance Department DKS Bhawan, Ralpur (C.6.) 2j DiRECTOR, Treasuries & Accounts and Pension, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Distnct Raipur (CG) 3] COMMiSSIONER, Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur, university Campus, Raipur (CG) 4] , ACCOUNTANT 6ENERAL, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF ORDER DATED 02.09.2005 PASSED IN W.P N0. T807/05 -y -^ v;it^^^^^^^SSCS^:^ftf 4-FA HieH COURT OF CHHATTISeARH AT BILASPUR M.C.C. No. 269 of 2006 Applicant Jitendra Singh Thakur VERSUS ResDondents State of Chhattisgarh d. others ^ SB : Hon'ble Justice Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J BY CIRCULATION ORDER (Passed on 15th of September, 2006) ^'' 1. The present application seeks a review of the order dated 2.9.2005 passed in W.P. No. 1807/2005 on the ground of discovery of new and important matter or eyidence. This reyiew application wds drcubted in the Chamber for consideration under Chapter-VI, Rule 76 (2) of the High Court of Chhanisgarh Rules, 2005. 2. I have perused the reyiew Gpplication and documents appended to the Writ Petition No. 1807/2005 which was dismissed by this Court on 2,9*2005 holding that there was no provision for revaluation of answer-sheets of the examination conducted for appointment in Sub-ordinate Account Seryices. 3. The writ petitioner submitted that the petitioner ought to have been awarded more marks and on that basis it was prayed that in the writ petition the respondents No, 2 and 5 be directed to revaluate the IVth and Vth papers of the SAS Part II, It was K^ ^ further prayed that the respondent No. 2 In the writ petition be directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner on the basis of subsequent ev@nts< 4. The Court after having examined the documents and hearing both the parties held that there was no provision for a direction to the authorities concerned to make revaluation of answer-sheets. 5. Against the order dated 2.9.2005 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1807/2005, the petitioner has preferred the Specia! Leave Petition (Civil) No (s). 22776/2005 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, by order dated 6.3*2006 (Annexure A/4), dismissed the Speciai Leave Petition, holding that there was no reason to interfere in the speciai leave petition. 6. The reyiew applicant has obtained certain documents under the provisionsof the Right to Information Act/wherein it was found that on the basis of revaiuation of answer-sheets, one Shri Saiik Ram Bansod was deciared GS successful. It was further brought to the notice of this Court thot by ietter dated 22.1.2005 (Annexure A/10) a request for revaiuation of answer-sheets in the Chhattisgarh Sub-ordinate Account Services (Departmenta!) Examination Part-FE was rejected holding that revaiuation was allowed only in exceptiona! circumstances, The review applicant has not produced any ru-Ie, executive instructions/ which provide for revaiuation of mim^ iSiS^KSiiSiS^S^SSSiiSiSSIS^ ^^- answer-sheets in the in the Chhattisgarh Sub-ordinate Account Services (Departrnental) Examination Part-II or otherwise, Hence, there is no reason to review the order dated 2.9.2005 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1807/2005. 7. It is weii settled principie of law as held by the Supreme Court in the cases of Smt. Meera Bhanja Vs, Smt. Nirmaia Kumari Choudhary (AIR 1995 Supreme Court 455L Lily TTiomas, etc. Vs. Union of India and others {AIR 2000 Supreme Court 1650), Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. Stateof Orissa and others {AIR 2000 SuDreme Court 85}, ^oyernment of T,N< and others Vs. M* Ananchu A??d and otiiers {(2005) 2 SCC 332} ond Kerla State, Eiectriclty Board Vs. Hltech Electrothermics & Hydrosower Ltd. and others {(2005) 6 SCC 651}. 8. As a resuit and for foregoing reasons, this review application is dismissed on the ground that this review application is not in accordance with the requirements for review of an order GS per iaw and the present review applicant seeks rehearing of the case in the guise of review appiication, which stands conciuded by order dated 2.9.2005 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 1807/2005. 9. There shai! be no order as to costs, Bablu Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge