S.B. Civil Review Petition No.58/2008 {S.B.C.W.P. No.2804/2007} Bhanwar Singh v. State of Raj. & another Date of order: 13.03.2009 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr Sandeep Bhandawat, for the petitioner Mr D.S. Rajvi, for the respondent No.2 While rejecting S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2804/2007 on 13th October, 2008, this Court held that the petitioner was having a contract with respondents for providing computer system along with computer operator but no relationship of master & servant. This Court also did not find allegation of the petitioner that the respondents want to replace an ad hoc appointee by another ad hoc appointee well placed. After dismissal of the Writ Petition, the petitioner preferred instant application seeking review of the judgment dated 13th October, 2008, by placing on record a copy of the order dated 01st July, 2004 giving him appointment as Computer Operator. This Court by order dated 21st November, 2008 issued notices to respondents relying upon an additional affidavit filed by the petitioner with an statement that while filing the original writ petition, the fact of appointment as Computer Operator was mentioned but the appointment order could not be annexed at that time being lying at his parental house. In the additional affidavit aforesaid, it is also stated that the document in question was not traceable even at the time of filing rejoinder and therefore, it was not possible to place the same on record. In response to notice dated 21st November, 2008, a reply to Review Petition has been filed on behalf of respondents, stating therein that a clarification was sought from Shri Paras Ram Tiwari, who was in-charge of BRCF, Bhopalgarh in the year 2004-05 regarding document dated 01st July, 2004 and Shri Paras Ram by letter dated 21st December, 2008 clarified that he never passed such an order. A copy of letter dated 21st December, 2008 is also placed on record wherein a specific assertion is made by Shri Paras Ram that the document concerned was not passed by him and there is no entry regarding issuance of such an order in the Institution Register too. Without entering into question of genuineness of the document concerned, I am of the view that the review sought is not required to be given as the document, on the basis of which review is sought in under clouds being disputed. The Review Petition, therefore, is dismissed. [GOVIND MATHUR],J. mma