SBCRevP NO.106/09. SBCRevP NO.107/09. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R 1) S.B. CIVIL REVIEW PETITION No.106/2009. IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2440/2009. Smt.Rekha Mangal Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2) S.B. CIVIL REVIEW PETITION No.107/2009. IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2435/2009. Smt.Alka Palaiwal Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order:- February 5, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri B.K. Sharma for the petitioners. Dr.Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma, Additional Government Counsel. ***** BY THE COURT:- Shri B.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that this matter was wrongly taken along with other writ petitions and it was incorrectly given out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that matter was covered by the decision of this court in M.K. Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No.4298/2008) decided on SBCRevP NO.106/09. SBCRevP NO.107/09. 2 15/5/2009. Learned counsel submits that the controversy in the case of M.K. Sharma was different whereas in the present case, name of the petitioner was not at all included in the merit list though first name who had lower merit than petitioner was so included. Learned counsel submitted that in the interest of justice, matter be heard afresh so that judgment on the merits of the case is rendered. Learned counsel for the State does not dispute the fact that it was wrongly given out to the court that the controversy involved in this matter is squarely covered by the judgment in the case of M.K. Sharma, supra. It was altogether a different issue. Having heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record, I find that this matter indeed was different than the case of M.K. Sharma supra and it was decided in that light as per consent of learned counsel appearing for both the contesting parties. However, now in the interest of justice, it is considered necessary that matter is decided on its own merits, judgment deserves to be reviewed and recalled. SBCRevP NO.106/09. SBCRevP NO.107/09. 3 In the result, both the review petitions are allowed. The common judgment dated 28/5/2009 passed in SBCWP Nos.2440/2009 and 2435/2009 is recalled and both the writ petitions are restored to their original number and both the writ petitions be listed for decision afresh on merits. Names of learned counsel appearing in the review petitions now be shown in the cause list whenever writ petitions are listed for appropriate orders. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil