IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 113 of 2010 (S/B) Jagdish Chandra Kandpal and others ….…… Petitioners Versus Uttarakhand Public Service Commission and others ……….Respondents Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Advocate for the review applicants. Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Adhikari, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.D. Kandpal, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Standing Counsel for the State / respondent No. 2. Date of Order: 18.05.2011 Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Review Application No. 300 of 2011 Notices, sent to the review applicants, were sent through registered post with A.D. Neither the A.D. nor the postal packets, containing the notices sent to them, returned to the Court. The Court proceeded on the basis that the review applicants should be deemed to have been served. When the matter was taken up for consideration, the Court felt that an attempt should be made to serve the review applicants personally once again. Accordingly, copies of the writ petition were handed over to the learned counsel for the State with a request to the Secretary, Personnel Department to effect service upon review applicants of those copies of the writ petition. Review applicants were, accordingly, served by the Secretary, Personnel Department and by a fax, such information was furnished to the Court. 2. Today, in the review application, review applicants are contending that the Rules, upon which the Court relied, were not applicable. There is no just reason why the review applicants could not bring the same to the notice of this Court at the appropriate time. We refuse to admit the review application on behalf of the review applicants, who have shown utter disregard to the notices sent to them by this Court. 3. The review application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Servesh Kr. Gupta, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 18.05.2011 18.05.2011 Amit