Review Petition No. 43 of 2009. 5.5.2011 Present: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Additional AG for the petitioners. Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate for respondent No. 1. CMP (M) N. 877 of 2009 Heard. Allowed. Disposed of. Review Petition No. 43 of 2009. Respondent No.1 filed an Original Application before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, seeking his appointment as Deputy Ranger on account of his having been selected for the post against the quota meant for direct recruits, though he, at the time of making of application, was already working as Forest Guard in the Forest department. The rules of recruitment provide that a Forest guard, already working could also apply for appointment against direct quota post, provided he fulfils the eligibility criteria. According to the prescribed eligibility criteria the candidate should be matriculate with Physics and Chemistry and should also not be less than 18 years of age and more than 27 years of age. Respondent No.1 was interviewed and selected, but not appointed. One other candidate by the name of Hukam Chand, who is respondent No.2 herein and who did not fulfill the eligibility criteria, both educational qualification wise and age wise was, however, appointed after having been interviewed against direct quote post. There were 75 vacancies which were meant for direct quota candidates. When Hukam Chand had been appointed by relaxing the condition though he was placed lower in merit than respondent No.1. The latter filed Original application seeking a direction to the present review petitioners for appointing him. That OA was allowed by the Tribunal. Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking judicial review of the Tribunal, was filed before this Court. That petition was allowed by our Bench vide judgment dated 18.12.2008. Now the petitioners, who were respondents in the aforesaid writ petition, have sought review of the judgment dated 18.12.2008. It is stated in the petition that this Court has passed the order in favour of respondent No.1 because of Hukan Chand who was otherwise ineligible having been appointed by petitioner No.1 after the delivery of judgment dated 18.12.2008 by this Bench. Order of appointment of respondent No.1 Hukam Chand is stated to have been recalled, vide order dated 28th April, 2009. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. If a party after suffering an adverse judgment, changes the factual position, it cannot seek review of the judgment of the Court on the ground that change in factual position has taken place. Review may be permissible in cases where change in factual position takes place after institution of the case, but before its disposal. A party cannot be allowed to seek review by changing the factual position after the decision of the case. This is particularly so when the object of changing the factual position is to negate the judgment of the court. Consequently, review petition is dismissed. ( R.B. Misra ), J ( Surjit Singh ), J 5th May, 2011 (sl)