-1- R.P NO.409/2011 16.12.2011: Shri Atul Jaiswal, counsel for the petitioner. Arguments heard. O R D E R The present petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 03.10.2011 passed in Contempt Case No.780/2011 on the ground that while passing the said order, this Court did not take in to account the order dated 15.07.2009 passed by Collector, Khargone. 2. In order to appreciate the contention, it is necessary to state the relevant facts which are as under. Petitioner was an aspirant for the post of Panchayat Karmi (Secretary), Gram Panchayat, Bamandi. Respondent N0.5 was also a candidate for the said post. After selection process, respondent No.5 was appointed on the post. The said appointment was challenged by the petitioner in revision before the Collector, Khargone who by order dated 30.09.2008 allowed the revision and set aside the appointment of respondent No.5. A direction was also issued to the Sarpanch concerned to take steps in accordance with law for -2- appointment of a person on the post of Panchayat Karmi (Secretary). As no action was taken by the Sarpanch, petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court (W.P.No.3839/09). The said writ petition was disposed of on 29.06.2009 and a direction was issued to the Sarpanch to take appropriate steps for the compliance of the order dated 30.09.2008 within the outer limit of three months from the date of the order. It is not disputed that after the order dated 29.06.2009 was passed, a fresh order was issued on 15.07.2009 and once again respondent No.5 was appointed on the post of Panchayat Karmi. This order was not challenged in writ petition instead contempt was filed as if no order was passed. The contempt petition was disposed of granting time to comply with the order. Some time later on, another contempt was filed and that too has been disposed of without any direction in favour of the petitioner. Yet another contempt was filed which came to be decided on 03.10.2011 and a finding was recorded that no positive order was passed in favour of the petitioner. The order dated 3.10.2011 passed in contempt case No.780/2011 was not challenged. Now the petitioner has come up with this review petition saying that there is an error apparent on the -3- face of the record. 3. After hearing counsel at length and going through the material available on record, we do not find that any case has been made out for review of the order. Cases are decided once by the Courts and after the decision is given unless a case is strictly made out for review, the Courts are not expected to keep on changing orders otherwise it would lead to total chaos and gross indiscipline. The petition being devoid of any substance is hereby dismissed. (S.K.SETH) JUDGE Hk/