IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C. Review No. 126 of 2011 Date of Decision : October 11, 2011 Dr. Manmohan Bramta … Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. P. P. Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R. K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. J. K. Verma, Dy. A.G. for respondent No. 1. Mr. D. K. Khanna, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate, for respondent No. 7. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) This is a petition for review of the judgment dated 5.7.2011 at the instance of the third party. According to the review petitioner direct recruitment in respect of vacancies for the post of lecturer in Oral Surgery as per the advertisement of the Public Service Commission dated 20.8.2010 (Annexure P-8 in the writ petition and Annexure R-7/7 in the Review Petition) should not have been pursued since there were no vacancies. Review petitioner has placed reliance on Annexure RP-5, 2 notification dated 9.7.2010 of the Government of Himachal Pradesh contending that direct recruitment should have been permitted only where posts are not occupied by tenure appointees. It is seen from the information furnished by the review petitioner himself as per Annexure RP-3 that in case of Oral Surgery the sanctioned strength was four. There was only one regular appointee, one tenure appointee and others were contract appointees. It is also seen from notification dated 29.8.2009 of the State Government that the contractual lecturers are not equated or treated at par with tenure lecturers. In the notification it is clearly stated that after the completion of the contract period the incumbent will have to appear in the examination for selection as tenure lecturer. Thus it is fairly clear that there were two vacancies for the post of lecturers in Oral Surgery. In the judgment which is sought to be reviewed this Court has only directed to fill up only those two vacancies in view of Annexure P-7, notification of the Government dated 9.7.2010 followed by advertisement of the Public Service Commission dated 20.8.2010 since the Government itself had decided to fill up the vacancies despite their earlier policy decision to scrap the Recruitment & Promotion Rules. Thus, we find no error apparent on the face 3 of record so as to review the judgment. Review petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), also stands disposed of. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Sanjay Karol), Judge. October 11, 2011 (PK/C)