IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR $§m§a Eansh REVIEW PETITION NO. g OF 2006 ' (Arising out of order gated 4.I62006 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.5245 Of 2006 by Hon’ble Justice S.K.Agnihotri J.) PETITIONER ,r", Sushil Kumar Patel ,aged about :i'» ~ 33 years S/ o Shri Yadumani Patel‘ resident of Village Banjipali, Post ‘ Office , Saiheona ,Via Sariya, Tahsil Sarangarh , District Raigarh (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1 The State of Chhattisgarh, I; through the Secretary , , Department of School Education Mantralay , D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 3'2. Janpad Panchayat Baramkela , through its Chief Executive Officer at Baramkefa, District Raigarh (CG). ,3“: Additional Collector, Rajgarh District Raigarh (CG). «4': District Education Off1cer, District Raigarh (CG). “wr fzv’m REVIEW PETITION IN WRIT PETITION (S) No.5245 OF 2006 (BETWEEN SUSHIL KUMAR PATEL VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS ) (-Y E§§GH CGURT 9F JEHHCATURE CHE'iATTlSGARI-I: BI, SPUR single Bench: Hon’ble Shri satish K. Agnihotri, J. Review Petition No. 25 cf 200a Petitiona‘ : Sushil Kumar Fatal Vcmus Respondents : The Sfaie: 0f Chhattisgarh & athers By circulation in Chamber. I ‘4‘. OR§§R o g ’W‘ Novemberg 2006) 1. Thea present appHcation seeks a Feviaw of the Order datad 4th Octobar, 2006 giasswd by fhiS (301111 in W.P.No. 5245 of 2006 (Sushil Kumax Patel Vs. Stata of Chhattisgarh 65 oth€1"s), riot 011 fhe grouml cf {liseovaxy 9f ajiy new fact or any manif€st army in the impugnad order but on thf: $311K. grounds which W€r€ consfdarad and d€cided €a1§ie1~ 'u1 ihe. Wiit pafitian. 2. This mview applicafien is circulated in the Chamber far considaraiimi antler Cha§ter W Rule 76 (2) csf the High (391111 0f Chhattisgarh Rules) 2005. ¢ .« 3, E hava p€rused the revi€w applicaiioil and dOCUments apw‘mied thereto, as weH as the payers of the. W.P.N0. 5245 Qf 2006 which was coeskiered and Ciecided vii‘le erder dated 4. 10.2006, which is saught to be reviewed in this application. 4. This Court after heasing learned counsel for the. parties came. to the. conclusioa as under:- '$’_ “3. The contention of leaiiied counsel for the petitioner that similarly situated candidates, who were in the \Jo seQect list of Juna, 1999 and had approached this; COL—111, in the year 2002 m1d. 2003, have haeu grantad relief of amaointmétnt, is not sustainabla in. law, a3 111a §e%iti011er has no right to appointmant Q 011 ha basis 0f his place in the select li‘st. Even atheiwisa, tha p€titi9n€r has slept over his 1igl1£ for a period of 7 years and this pemion was feed on 21.9.2006 when the Iights 0f fhe yartiee and ether similarly situated candidates have been crystallized by fhis time. The glenfjoner has not submitted any l reasons for unexnlained inorclinate delay of 7 years for approaching this Court. {t is well settlefl principle of law in View of the §eeisions of the Supreme Couft. in the cases of Jagdish Narain Maltiar Vs. The State of ‘Bihal and otheisl, RS. Sadasivaswami Vs. State of Tamil Nadu? and Kaynataka Power Comoration Ltd 8r, Am. Vs. V. K. Thangapiaan &, Am.3 that repeated renresentations cannot justify a belated approach. , to the Courts. Entertaining belated approach would. unsettle the settled matters, and the same should be avoided.” 5. The petitioner has not pointed out any manifest error on the recon]. and. the petitioner has not further brought into the notice, any new fact which could not be Iirodnced earlier despite diligent efforts made by the petitioner. It is well settled that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedule, even in exercise of review jurisdiction by thewliigh Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The applicant has not produced any new ground for review except the same grounds which have been considered. and decided in the writ petition. /r .‘z / \9 6. Pn'neiple af law is wall setfkd bV $€vera} imHcial prononncemems 0f the Hon’ble Supmme (391111 £1; the cases 0f Smt Mara Bhanja Vs‘ Smt. Nixmala Kumari Choudharyl, Lily Thnma§ eta. Va. Unimw nf hn'h'a mwd ni‘hm‘gQ, Aiit Kmlear Rath Vs. State of OriSSa aml othrs3: Govanment of T.N. and others Vs, M‘ Ananchu Asari and othrs", and Karla State E1€ctricity Board Vs. Hiech Elecnbthermics 6a H'y‘ciropower Ltci. arid § othrs5. 7. Ag. a result and fo’r the fomgeing masons, this review a app§cation is dismissed 9n the ground that this review apph'cau‘en is not in accordance with the requirements for review of a}: ovder as per law and the. eresent review applicant seeks mhean’llg of the ease in the guise of review application, which staiido concluded by order dated 4.10.2006 passed by this Court in W.PVNo.5245 of 2OG6. No order as to costs. Sd/— SATISH K. ANGNIHOTRI Judge AIR 1995 SC 455 AIR 2000 SC 1650 Ai AIR 2000 SC 85 (2005) 2 SCC 332 (2005} 6 SCC 651 v: mmbww Thakur