COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Review Pefifion No.30 of 2009 S’rafe of ChhaT‘risgarh, Through: Secre‘rary Deparfmen’r of Education, D.K.5. Bhawan, Raipur‘ (6.6.) APPELLANT$ 2. The Direcfor‘ Public Ins’rr‘ucfion, Chhah‘isgarh Governmen‘r Raipur, bisfricf Raipur‘ (C.G.) 3. The Disfr‘ic’r Educm‘ion Officer, Block Bodla, Disf. Jcnjgir' Champa (C.G.) Vs Suresh Kumar‘ Barefh, Aged abouf 38 year, S/o shm‘ shyam Lal Barefh, Assis‘ran’r Teacher, Gov’r. Primary School, Pachori, Block Bamm’dih, Dislricf Janjgir-Champo (CG) RESPONDENTS 2. Resham Lal Chandra, S/o Shri Gajadhar Chandra, aged abouf 37 years, Ass’rf Teacher, Gov’r. H.$. School Da‘l’oud, Block Jaijaipur, Disfric‘r Janjgir-Champa (CG) 3. Bhuwneshwar Prasad Chandra, S/o Shri Thokur Lal Chandra, aged abou? 39 year, Assisfam Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Tha’rhari, Block Jaijaipur, Disif. Janjgir— Champa(CG) 4. Panchram Sahu, S/o Shri Karfik Ram Sahu, aged abou’r 38 year, Assistan‘l' Teacher, Govt Primary School, Lakhali, Block Bamnidih, Disi’r. Janjgir—Champa (CG) 5. Prif Ram Chandra, S/o Shri Shyam Lal Chandra, aged abouT 38 year, Assisfam‘ Teacher, Gov‘l’. Middle School Amgaon, Block Jaijaipur, Dish‘. Janjgir-Champa (CG) 6. Ramal Jaiswal, S/o Shri Narsingh Lal Jaiswal, aged abou‘l 38 years, Assislam‘ Teacher, Gov‘r. Prayogik Middle School, Janjgir, Block Nawagarh, Disiricf Janjgire Champa (CG) O R D E R (In chamber) (Passed on 5.6.2009) Dhirendra Mishra, J: 1. The appellanT—Sia‘le and ifs officers have filed ”this applicafion and prayed for review of fhe order da’red 6.2.2009 passed by ‘rhis Courf in W.P. (s) No.392/09. Appellam‘s have also preferred an application for condonafion of delay as The review pefi‘rion has been preferred wifh a delay of 31 days. %® HIGH . . For The reasons indicaTed in The applicaTion daTed 08.04.2009 for condonafion of delay, which is also suppom‘ed by ’rhe affidavif of Shri B.L. Kurre, D.E.O., Bilaspur', The applicm‘ion for condona’rion of deluy is allowed and delay is condoned. . IT is seTTled law ThaT The High CourT exercises power of review as a CourT of plenary jurisdicfion ’ro prevenf miscarriage of jus’rice or ’ro correcf grave and palpable errors commi‘h‘ed by if. There are no definitive limifs ’ro The exercise of The powers of review. The power of review may be exercised on The discovery of new and imporTanT maTTer or evidence which, offer The exercise of due diligence, was noT wiThin The knowledge of The person seeking The review or could not be produced by him aT The Time when The order was made. IT may be exercised where some misTake or error apparenT on The face of The record is found. However, The power is To be exercised wiThin The limiTaTions as provided under SecTion 114 read wiTh Order 47 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. . From perusal of The order under review and original record of W.P. (s) No.392/O9, iT is evidenT ThaT afTer hearing counsel for The peTiTioner as well as The respondenTs/STaTe in deTaiI The wriT peTiTion was allowed, subjecT To all verificaTions regarding The facTs pleaded in The peTiTion. Various circulars issued by The STaTe from Time To Time referred To in This applicaTion, were also broughT To The noTice of This CourT aT The Time of argumenT as is evidenT from reading of The order under review. In The considered opinion of This CourT, no any ground as menTioned in The review peTiTion is available To The appellanT—STaTe for review of The order daTed 6.2.2009. . Accordingly, The insTanT review peTiTion being wiThouT any subsTance deserves To be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Roshan/— Sd/ a Mishta 3udge Dhirendi 1mm mmwmmmv