THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH REW.WPMP.NO.22644 OF 2011 in WP.NO.12150 OF 2007 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. This petition is filed seeking review of the order of this court dated 8.6.2011 passed in W.P.No.12150/2007. 3. The petitioner worked as Assistant Engineer in the respondent – company on contractual basis and he was terminated from service on the ground of inefficient performance. Aggrieved by the same, he filed writ petition before this court in W.P.No.12150/2007. This court by order dated 8.6.2011 found that he was terminated in violation of the principles of natural justice, as no enquiry was conducted, but however, as the contract period expired long back, disposed of the writ petition holding that the termination of the petitioner shall be treated as ‘termination simplicitor’. 4. The learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that he could not bring to the notice of this court the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in GOVERNMENT OF A.P. vs. M.M.KRISHNA KUMAR[1] and another judgment in ANITA AIDINYANTZ vs. DR.KEN. R. GNANAKAN[2] and had those judgments were brought to the notice of this court, the order would have been different. He submitted that as no opportunity was given to the petitioner, which this court also found based on record, the petitioner could not prove his case and further he was terminated in violation of the provisions contained in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. With these contentions, he sought to review the order of this court. 5. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent - company opposing the review petition, sought for dismissal of the same. 6. It is well settled that not bringing of judgments to the notice of this court while disposing of the writ petition, cannot be a ground to seek the review. Moreover, as already noticed above, the petitioner was appointed on contract basis for a specific period and the contract period expired and subsequently it was not extended. Therefore, noticing that he was terminated without conducting a detailed enquiry, by expunging the stigma cast on him with regard to inefficient performance, considering a decision of this court in M.V.N.SHYAM v. EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P.[3], the termination of the petitioner was directed to be treated as ‘termination simplicitor’. This order was passed, with the object that the stigma cast on him by the respondent – company, shall not affect his career and also shall not come in his way for consideration of his case for employment either by the respondent – company or any where in future. 7. Further, I do not find any error apparent on the face of record, warranting review of the order dated 8.6.2011. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the review petition is dismissed. No costs. AVS ------------------------------- 16—08—2011 [1] 2010(3) ALD 98 [2] 1997(1) ALD 44 [3] W.P.No.16188/2008 dated 20.8.2008 (Single Judge, A.P. High Court)