> @ i‘llGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Division Banch : Han’ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra, & Hon’gle Shri R.N. Chagdrakar, gg nuiew pemi'an No_ 126 of 201a Applicant Smt. Gayatri Chaturvedi, Wio Shri Krishna Murat Chaturvedi, (Dt. of birth 2OI1OI1964), aged about 45 years, Anganbadi Worker, .Aanganbadi Centre — lmlitola, Gram Panchayat — Devargaon, Project—Gaurela (Pendra Road), District Biiaspur (CG) {. , ) w L (Rail No.13013108 -Vereus- Respondents 1. State of Chhaitisgarh. Through the Secretary, Department of Women and Child Development. Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 2. The Secretary, Department of General Admn. Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The Director. Department of Women and Child Development, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan. Raipur (CG) The Collector, Distt. Bllaspur (CG) S. District Programme Officer, Department of Women and Child Development, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Project Officer, Department of Women and Child Development, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (CG) y O R D E R (Paseed on 16MApril, 2011 in chamber) Per Dhirendra Mishra, J The applicant by this application has prayed for review of the order dated 9'“ April, 201D passed in W.P.(s) No.2?41/09 & other connected writ petitions, on the ground that the appllcant being Aanganbadi Worker is governed by Chhattisgarh Woman \ @ and Child Development Department Executive Class Hl (Non- Gazetted) Service and Recruitment Rules, 2008 (in short “the Rules, 2008”). Rule 12 of t'he Rules, 2U08 provides for limited direct reeruitment of Aanganbadi Workers on the post of 8upervisor and therefore, the applicant being a candidate of different category, her case cannot be treated at par with the candidates of direct recruitment. 2. The applicant has also filed an application (IA No.01) for condonation of delay as this review application has been preferred ith a delay of 49 days. w 3. Considering the reasons mentioned in the applicatin. o which is also supported by the affidavit, we propose to examine the issue on merits by condoning the de in filing this review lay application. Accordingly, No.0 is allowed and delay is lA 1 condoned. 4. After going trough the grounds raied in the review h s application and after close examination of the order under f e review, we ind that the grounds taken in th review application have already ben considered elaborately and rejected on e merits. The applicant cannot be peritted to re-agitate the same m ground in the garb of applcation for review. i S. lt is settled law that the High Court exercise power of review as a Cou of plenar jursdiction to prevent mscarriae rt y i ig ofjustice or to correct grave and palpab errors comitte by it. le md There are no definitive limits to 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, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at \a / “Amazem L" W“ s the time when the order was made. It may be exercisad where some mistake ‘or error apparent on the face of the record is found. However. the power is to be exercised within the iimitations as provided under Section 114 read with Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 6. Thus. in View of the above settled principles of law and after going through the order under review, we are of the opinion that no permissible ground for review has been made out by the applicant. We find no illegality or infirmity in the order under \bl up review. .Accordingly. the instant application being without any merits is hereby dismissed. l Sd/- Sd/- l R.N. Chandrakar Dhirendra Mishra Judge Judge