HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Review Pe‘rition No.36 of 2009 APPELLANTS Sfafe of ChhuT‘risgarh, Through: 5ecr‘e‘tar‘y School Education Depam‘menf, D.K.S. Bhawan, District Raipur‘ (6.6.) 2. Dis‘rr‘ic’r Educm‘ion Officer, Raigarh CG.) 3. Block Educofion Officer, Baramkela, Dis’r. Roigorh (C.G.) Vs RESPONDENTS Rang Vallobh Sidar‘, Aged about 40 years, S/o Sundar Soi Sidar', Upper Division Teacher, Governmenf Secondary Schooi, Saraipali, Block Bar'amkela, Districf Rajnandgaon (CG). 2. Ku. Abisia Xess, D/o Lo’re Habil Xess, Aged-abou’r 45 years, Head Masfer, Government Girls Primary School, Lendhro, Block-Baramkela, Distric’r Raigarh (CG) 3. Smi. Amrensiya Ekka, W/o Aihnas Ekka, Aged—abou‘r 43 years, Heod Masfer, Governmeni Primary School, KoTara, Block— Bar‘amkela, Disiricf Roigorh (C6) 4. Smi. Anasiasiya Tigga, W/o Lajrus, Aged- abou‘r 50 years, Assisfan’r Teacher, Government Primary School, Kamrid, Block- Baramkelo, Disfrici Raigarh (CG). ORDER (In chamber) (Passed on $.62009) Dhirendra Mishra, J: 1. The appellan’r—Siafe and i’rs officers hove filed This applica‘lion and prayed for review of The order dafed 6,2.2009 passed by This Cour? in W.P. (s) No.228/O9. Appellan’rs have also preferred an applicaiion for condonafion of delay as ’rhe review pefi’rion has been preferred wifh a delay of 31 days. 2. For The reasans indica’red in The applicaTion daTed 08.04.2009 for condonaTion of delay, which is also supporTed by The affidaviT of Shri B.L. Kurre, D.E.O., Bilaspur, The applicaTion for condonaTion of delay is allowed and delay is condoned. 3. IT is seTTled law ThaT The High CourT exercises power of review as a CourT of plenary jurisdicTion To prevenT miscarriage of jusTice or To correcT grave and palpable errors commiTTed by iT, There are no . defini’rive limifs ‘ro The exercise of The powers of review. The power of review may be exercised on The di3covery of new and impor‘ron’r maf‘rer 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 misToke 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.228/O9, iT is evidenT Thm‘ ofTer hearing counsel for The peTiTioner as well as The respondenTs/STaTe in deTail 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 applicoTion, 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/— A Sudge ishta Din:endYaM