Mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION LODGING NO.23 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITON NO.213 OF 1998 The Chief of the Naval Staff & Ors. .Petitioners Vs. Shri S.N. Barik ..Respondent Mr. Rui Rodrigues with Mr. S.C. Pal for the Appellants. Mr. Satendra Kumar, for respondent. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 29st April, 2010 P.C. This is a Review preferred against the judgment of this Court dated July 7, 2008. The only point which has been canvassed before this Court is that the finding by the learned Division Bench that the Naval Order issued pursuant to the powers conferred by the Navy Discipline Act, 1937 being Navy Order 2002 of No.110/37 and that the life time of the Navy Order was eight years from the date of the issue, discloses error apparent as under the Navy Act, 1957 for the first time a Naval order was issued in the year 1995 setting out the life time of the order. It is, therefore, submitted that the Navy Order of 1967 which laid down the condition of passing the examination subsisted. Circular 88 of the Navy Headquarters does not partake Navy Order and consequently the order of the learned Division Bench discloses error of law apparent on the face of the record. 2. On the other hand on behalf of the contesting respondent our attention is invited to Nay Orders of 1983 which under Navy Order clearly sets out as under:- Life of Navy Orders. “6. Navy Orders are not intended to be a permanent work of reference. No Navy Order will remain extant for more than eight years from the date of their issue and will be treated as automatically cancelled thereafter. The matter contained in it, if it still represents current policy, would by then have either been incorporated in the appropriate publication or in a new Navy Order.” It is, therefore, clear that life time of the Navy order of 1967 was for eight years and on expiry of eight years will be treated as automatically cancelled. It is in that context that the learned Division Bench considered the circular of 1988 though it described as a Naval Order. Whatever may be the position, it is that Circular which would govern the examinations conducted in the year 1992. 3. The second contention was sought to be raised that the petitioner, the respondent herein had not got 65% in the practical examination. Firstly, no such plea was raised in the reply or before the Division Bench nor has any material being produced before us to show that the respondent herein, original petitioner had not obtained the required percentage. Considering the above, in our opinion, we find no merit in the Review Petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (A.A. SAYED, J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)