IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Review Petition No. 126 of 2011 in Writ Petition No. 1313 of 2005 (SS) Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Ram Pratap, Private Secretary to the Chief Minister, Uttaranchal & four others …..…Petitioners Versus State of Uttaranchal through Chief Secretary Government of Uttaranchal, Civil Secretariat Dehradun & Eight others ……….Respondents Shri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Alok Mahra, Advocate present for the review applicants/respondents. Shri Lalit Sharma, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate, present for the respondent nos. 4 and 5. Ms. Beena Pande, Advocate, present for the respondent no. 3. Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this review petition MCC No. 2 126 of 2011, the respondent nos. 6 to 9 have sought review of order dated 17.02.2011, passed by this Court in writ petition no. 1313 of 2005 (SS) whereby said writ petition was disposed of by this Court. 3. Admittedly, the review applicants (respondent nos. 6 to 9) are appointees in the State of Uttar Pradesh after appointed day i.e. 09.11.2000, as such the provision contained in U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 (Central Act, 29 of 2000) are not applicable to them, as such there is no question of allocating them to State of Uttarakhand. 4. Learned counsel for the review applicants submitted that there is no bar for State of Uttar Pradesh and State of Uttarakhand to give and take employees on deputation basis and absorb them with the consent of the employees . 5. Having gone through the pleadings of the parties, we do not find that the parties have pleaded that the review applicants (respondent nos. 6 to 9) were sent on deputation to the State of Uttarakhand, as such we are unable to agree with the submission made on behalf of the review applicants. 6. In the above Circumstances, since we do not 3 find any error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 17.02.2011, passed by this Court, in our opinion the review application is liable to be rejected. The review application is rejected. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 23.03.2011 Parul