IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Review No. 101 of 2011 Decided on: 26.12.2011 CSK Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., through its Registrar …Petitioner. Versus 1. Anil Kumar Sharma, son of Shri Ram Parshad Sharma, VPO Maranda Palampur, Kangra, H.P. …Respondent. 2. Shri Sudesh Kailash, Private Secretary to the Registrar, HPKV Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. …Proforma Respondent. Civil Review Petition under Section 114 with Order XLVII, Rule 1 CPC. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Lokendar Paul Thakur, Advocate. For respondent No. 1: Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) By means of this review petition, the petitioner has sought review of the judgment dated 18th October, 2010. 2. It would be pertinent to mention that the writ petition was allowed in view of the notification dated 3rd January, 2009, issued by the Registrar of the respondent-University itself as mentioned in paragraph 4 of the judgment. It is contended by Mr. 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. -: 2 :- Lokendar Paul Thakur, Advocate, that the University has already granted benefit of the military service for purposes of pay fixation, but seniority could not have been granted. He further submits that this question is also the subject matter of a petition pending in the Apex Court, wherein the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 488 of 2001, titled V.K. Behal versus State of H.P. & others has been challenged. 3. In my view, both these grounds are not sufficient grounds to review the judgment. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. The remedy, if any, of the party aggrieved, is to file an appeal and not a review petition. Therefore, the review petition is rejected. No costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge December 26, 2011 (rajni)