EVIEW PETITION N ‘ APPELLANTS ‘ 1 Swapnil Roy Bivision Bench‘, ‘ " Aged about 27 Years, S/o Shrl S K Roy, R/o VINage & Post Lakhram Ratanpur istrlct—Bllaspur (C.G.) ubhash Singh are ed about 30 Years, o Bara Sihgh Par ed about 28 ears /o Janak Ram Kaushi /o-Nayaara (Bodri, Chakrabhat amp. 'District4 Bilapsur .G.) an]ay Kumar Verma ged /o Shrl Ram Kumar Verma , Ro— Village &‘Post Semart D‘istrict- Bilasp‘ur .G. N K Khk and umar ausi ged aou O ears S/ Shk, o S'hravan‘ Kaui . Ro- _ViHae& Post ‘Sewar, Tahsil—‘Bilh istrict- ilaspur (C.GV.' ‘ NON-APPLICANTS] 1;:’ State of Chhattisar ESPONDEN c epartmen of Reven R § o. l o D ,S Pt Ag -S/ ht te Ro Deon khurd near ower ouse Dlstr1ct Bllasur (C G / P H, p ) kaKak Neelntushi Ag Y ‘ S k Rp ) ha C (C ~'S A about 28 Years \S "/ al, (C) A bt 3 Y, / g a, D B ) / gh R‘TS - Through the Sereta ry, Dt ue, APPLANTS I ) V‘RIT APPEAL e‘. y r £8 f.» t D.K.S. Bhawan, antralaya, Raipur (C.G. 2. The Cssioner, ommi Lan Record, Raipu (C.G) d r .u 3. The CoHector, V Land Record, Bilaspur (CG) The Chhattisgarh Board of Professiona! " r Examinétion, Throuh the ControHer, Raipur C.G.) . Santos Kumar Ratre, S/o Bhikhu Ratre, Aged about 25 years, R/o— Village Khamriya, Tahsil Mungeii, District— Bilaspur (C.G.) (Petitioner no. 4 n writ petition) 6 Tushar Manu, S/o Shivdas Manu, Aged about 31 years, R/o—Behind Amar Gas Goown, Magarpara, District- Bilaspur (C..) (Petioner no. 8 in writ petition) 7. Adarsh Khandekar, S/o Atma Ram Khandekar, Village Phoolwari, Post Birrgaon, Mungeli, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) (Petioner no. 9 in wr petition) Aged about 28 years, R/o— Tahsii— . Samman Lal Thakur, S/o Laxman Lal Thar, Aged about 23 years, Ro CSE Colony, behind Hanuman Mandi Tifra, District— Bilaspur (C.G.) (Petitioner no. 14 in writ petition) Sandeep Kaushik, S/o C.L. Kaushik, Ad about 33 yea, R/o Shvnath Marg, Om (EL N é ,z M ) g ~ ( _5 h i ;. d G ti . ti it .k ku / B r ge rs i agar, Jarhabhata, District—Bilaspur (C.) (Petitioner no. 18 in writ petition) 10. Vinay Kumar Kosie, S/o Devsukha Kosie, ‘f' Aged abqut 25 years, R/o Viilage 8L Post Singari, Ratanpur, District— Bilaspur (C.G.) (Petitioner no. 19 in writ petition) 11. Ashwani Yadav, S/o Ramsharan Yadav, r” Aged about 24 years, R/o Near National Garage, Maharshi School, Rajendra Nagar, “Bistrict- Biiaspur (C.G.) (Petitioner no. 32 in writ petition) 1/2. Ravindrai Kashyap, S/o P.N. Kashyap, Aged / about 36 years, R/o Rajendra Nagar, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) (Petitioner no. 33 in writ petition) 1 '. Prakash Patel, S/o S.L. Patel, Aged about 30 years, R/o Siddhi Sadan, Indira Colony, Tarbahar, District— Bilaspur (C.G.) (Petitioner no. 38 in writ petition) 14. Rajesh Kiaushik, S/o Ganga Prasad Kaushik, é} Aged about 3O years, R/o Village Nagpura, Post Sirgitti, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Petitioner no. 45 in writ petition) PERFORMA RESPONDENT) 15 Ramesh Kumar Kaushik, S/o S.R. Kaushik, 7 6‘5 Aged about 36 years, R/o Near Maharana Pratap Chowk, Devi Nagar Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Petitioner no. 1 in the writ petition) m 16. Mukesh Kumar Pandey, S/o Late Lakhan Lal i/ Pandey, Aged about 31 years, R/o— Block Road Behind Omimeel, Tahsil— Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) N G. ( (Petitioner no. 2 in the writ petition) 17. Harish Chandra Jain, S/o Shikhar x/ Chand Jain, Aged about 26 years, R/o— Old Sa'rkanda, Near Mata Choura, Bihi Badi, Biiaspur, District— Bilaspur (C.G.) (Petitioner no. 3 in the writ petition) 1.8. Abid Mohammad Ansari, S/o Moh. Khadim Ahsari, Aged about 35 years, R/o Near Masjid Takhatpur, Tahsil— Takhatpur, Dlistrict— Bilaspur (C.G.) (Petitioner no. 5 in the writ petition) 19 Dhanendra Kumar Dewangan S/o Narayan Prasad Dewangan Aged about 28 years R/ 8/9 Mahaiaxmi Mandir, Patwapara, Takhatpur, Tahsil— Takhatpur, District— Biiaspur (C-G-) (P‘étitioner’no. 6 in the writ petition) _x 20 Chandan Lai Anant S/o Sudheram AnanL g Aged about 35 years R/o MISSIon Compound, Tahs1l— Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) (Petitioner no. 7 in the writ petition) ,2‘1. Surjit Singh Thakur, S/o Ganesh Singh Thakur, Aged about 34 years, R/o Care of Modi Haiwai, Near Shiv Mandir, Tirth‘ani Gaii, New Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (Petitioner no. 10 in the writ petition) 2,2: Smt Rajni Dewangan, W/o Manoj f Dewangan, Aged about 32 years, R/o Care of Sharda Typing and Photocopy center, opposite Manohar Talkies, Biiaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) I 1 i. gig y24l Rajman Singh Porte, S/o Akal Singh Porte, Aged about 28 years, R/o Village Sekhwa, P.O.- Kotmi (Pendra) District— Bilaspur (C.G.) (‘Retitioner no. 13 in the writ petition) ‘ /2§; Mukesh Sahu, S/o Saiiram Sahu, Aged { (Petitioner no. 11 in the writ petition) 23. Phooi Chand Dhruv, S/o Johit Ram Dhruv, Aged about 28 years, R/o Village Maiakchh'ar'i, P.O.-Dind0ri, Tahsil— Lormi, District— Bilaspu‘r (C.G.) (Petitioner no. 12 in the writ petition) about 31 years, R/o Near Jain Tent House Kududand, District— Bilaspur (C.G.) (Petitioner no. 15 in the writ petition) 26. Ramsharan Sahu, S/o B.R. Sahu, Aged about 33 years, R/o Bangalipara, Gali No. 4, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District— Bilaspur (C.G.) (Petitioner no. 16 in the writ petition) V27. Ramnarayan Kashyap, S/o— Dhaniram Kashyap,’ Aged about 31 years, R/o-C/o R.N. Sahu, Bangalipara, Gali No. 4 Sarkanda, District— Bilaspur (C.G.) (Petitioner no. 17 in the writ petition) 28. Bhagvat Prasad Upadhyay, S/o S.K.D. V Updhayay, Aged about 31 years, R/o Jail a’ Line (Central) Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) (Petitioner no, 20 in the writ petition) 29. Kumari Rubi Das, D/o P. Das, Aged about 22 years, R/o- Mission Compound, Takhatpur, District— Bilaspur (C.G.) (Petitioner no. 22 in the writ petition) mwm @ 30. Praveen Rajput, S/o Vijay Rajput, Aged about 26 years, R/o Saroda Nagar, Pali, District— Korba (C.G.) (Retitioneq no. 23 in the writ petition) 31. Sharad Sharma, S/o Bhagwar Prasad / Sharma, Aged about 26 years, R/o Village & Post Sakri, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) (Petitioner no. 25 in the writ petition) 32. Hemant Sahu, S/o R.P. Sahu, Aged about 36ryears, R/o- Sahu Bhawan, Chatterji Gali, New Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) (.Petitioner no. 28 in the writ petition) 3. Rakesh Sharma, S/o Vinay Mohan Sharma, Aged about 28 years,’ R/o Opposite Shri Ram Kripa Niwas, Nariyal Kothi, Dayalband, District— Bilaspur (C.G.) (Petitioner no. 29 in. the writ petition) ,. Virendra Kumar Patanwar, S/o Thakur Prasad Patanwar, Aged about 30 years, vR/o Jabra Road, Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) (Petitioner no. 30 in the writ petition) . Aniruddh Kumar Patanwar, S/o Lekhram Patanwar, Aged about 27-years, R/o Plot No. 64, Panchmukhi Hanuman Mandir, Rajkishore Nagar, District— Bilaspur (C.G.) " (Petitioner no. 31 in the writ petition) 362' 'Yogesh Pandey, S/o K.P. Pandey, Aged about 30 years, R/o Near Santoshi Mandir, Chantidih, District— Bilaspur (C.G.) (Petitioner no. 34 in the writ petition) W37. Manoj Barman, S/o Ramsujan Barman, t’ 3 / / 3,4 35 . Aged about 35 years, R/o Makan Number 1/95, Chandan Awas Rajkishore Nagar, District— Bilaspur (C.G.) (Petitioner no. 35 in the writ petition) i 38. Rajesh‘Kashyap, S/o Kheianram Kashyap, K; Aged about 35 years, R/o Rajabadapara, hormi,‘District— Bilaspur (C.G.) (Petitioner no. 36 in the writ petition) 39. Dhirendra Kashyap, S/o Shiv Shankar X, f “iiKashyap, Aged about 30 years, R/o Kushwaha Bhawan, Shankar Nagar, Chhuchhuiya Para, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) (Petitioner no. 37 in the writ petition) 40. Budheshwar Soni, S/o Mathura Prasad ‘Soni, Aged about 24 years, R/o Near S. Laxman Bhawan, Kapil Nagar, New Sarkanda, District— Bilaspur (C.G.) (Petitioner no. 39 in the writ petition) 41).,»Vijay Singh Marko, S/o Ganpat Singh Marko, Aged about 30 years, R/o— P.O. Ushad, Village Marwahi, Tahsii— Marwahi, District— Bilaspur (C.G.) (Petitioner no. 4O in the writ petition) l 42>,Bhuwan Lal Patel, S/o Dinanath Patel, .x/ Aged About 33 years, R/o P.O. Manikchouri, Tahsil— Masturi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) (Petitioner no. 41 in the writ petition) 43. Ram Manohar Kaushik, S/o Ramgopal Kaushik, Aged about 3O years, R/o Village Dewari, P.O. Dhooma, District— Bilaspur (C.G.) (‘Petitione’r»no. 42 in the writ petition) 14. nih Kumar Tamoli, S/o Vin Kmar Tambli, Agd about 26 years, R/o Near Shanti Loe, Juna Bilspur, istrict~ Bilaspu (CLG.) etitioner o. 43 in th wri petition) (P n e t 45. Khilan Sahu, S/o Santram Sahu, Aged (I about 3O year R/ Nayapara r Nag Santosh Chow Biaspu Dt- laspur G) (Peoner no. 44 in the writ petition) 4. esh Pandey, /o Late Shri Nejanand Paney, Aged about 29 years, R/o Village & Post Karhi, Tahsii— Muneii, District- Biispur (C.G.) (Petitioner no. 46 in the writ petition) Sarvesh Tved S/o Kpashankar Tvedi Aged about 27 year R/o Behnd Chhtrh Hgh Court, Drapar, District Biispur (C.G.) (Petitioner no. 8 in the writ petition) a? . Pankar Tiwari S/o Narendra Kumar Tari, Aged about 24 years, Ro Behind Kui Hoste Seepat Road, Chantidih, Biiaspur, District- Biiaspur (G.) (Petitioner . no. 49 in the writ petition) . 49. Somnath Patel, S/o Ghansiram Patel, Aged / 4 about 24 years, R/o— Behind Gurudwara, Vikas Nagar, 27 Kholi, Biiaspur, District— Bilaspur (C.G.) (Petitioner no. 5O in the writ petition) y M1 f Mas b od u o e dg a D r aw s o Kiti ar i k ir iatric Bi (C titi ‘&;. /6 Muk S e d g a 47 rii rl ri s i atisga i ipa - a 4 48 , iw / rm l, C. . \/ \/ @ ® ION FOR REVIEW UNDER RULE 90 OF THE HIGH COURT OF TTISGARH RULES 2007 READ WITH ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF TH OF CIVIL PROCEDURE DATED 29 06 2010 PASSED IN WA No 008 PETIT V FHHA I CODE 62(2 HIGH COURT‘OF CHHATTISGAkH AT BILA5PUR .i@ )1 DIVISION BENCH: ' HON'BLE MR. VI.M.QUDDU5I a HON'BLE MR.NAWAL KISHORE AGARWAL. JJ‘. REVIEW PETiTiON NO. 1G1/2010 1M. Quddusi, 3: 1. By means of This review peTiTion, The appellanTs seek review of fhe em! order da+ed 29.6.2010 passed by fhis Cour'r in W.A. No.262i2008. 2. Brief facTs of The case are ThaT The appellanTs compleTed Pafwari Training course in The monfh of March, 2007 on The basis of Their selecfion in 1'he year 2005, buf fhey were no? given‘appoinfmen’r affer complefion of their fraining and fhe wai'ring lis-r in which names of fhe appellanfs herein were appearing sfood lapsed. Thereaf‘rer, The responden‘l’ auTho‘ri'ries issued fresh adver‘risemen'r on 27.8.2008 and fhe same was challenged by fhe appellanfs before The learned Single Judge by filing wriT peTiTion bearing W‘P. (s) No.4870/08, which was dismissed vide order daTeld‘x 04.09.2008 giving reasons. ThereafTen wriT appeal was filed which was Too dismissed by This CourT vide order daTed 29.6.2010 as no illegaliTy appeared in issuing fresh adverTisemenT by The respondenTs. However, while dismissing The wriT appeal, This CourT had observed Tha‘l’ in case The appellanTs appeared in The examinaTion pursuanT To The new process for selecTion vide adverTisemenT daTed 27.8.2008 and geT success, Their furTher Training will be exempTed ORAL ORDER (9“ sepnrhber, 2010) “A APPELLANTS Swapnil Roy and oTher-s Vs NONIAPPELLANTS S'mfe of Responden'i's o'rhers g Againsf the said order The insfanf review pe’rifion has been filed. .Heard learned counsel for The parTies and perused The grounds faken by fhe applican+s in fhe pefifion for review. The scope nf infer-ference in review pe‘ri'rion is weH se‘Hled. The paramefers are prescribed in Order 47 CPC. The pe'rifione'r can pray for review on accoun'l' of misfake or error apparen‘r omfhe face of record. Misfake or error apparen'r signifies an error which is evidenf per se from The record of 'rhe case and does nof require defaiied examinafion, scrutiny and elucidafion ei’rher of The facfs or 'rhe iegai posi‘rion. If an error is no‘r seif—evidenf and defecfion ‘rhereof requires long deba'ie and process of reasoning,’ i‘l' canno‘t be freafed as an error appareni’ on ‘ihe face of The record for The purpose of Order 47 Ruie 1 CPC. The order under review has been passed afTer considering The argumenTs advanced by The respecTive parTies and Therefore, in view of The above seTTied posiTion of law, no ground for review is available To The appellanTs againsT The impugned order. Even oTherwise, This CourT cannoT compel The respondenTs To appoinT The appellanTs whose names appeared in The waiTing lisT of The year 2005 and compleTed Their Training in The year 2007. 6. Accordingly, The insTanT review peTiTion is wiThouT any; subsTance, The same deserves To be and is hereby dismissed‘ Sd/- Sdl- N.K. Agrawal Dr. I.M. Quddusil l Judge Roshan/ - Judgeg i