HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM REV. WAMP No. 2949 OF 2011 IN WRIT APPEAL No. 1482 OF 2000 07-07-2014 BETWEEN L. Prabha Rani …Petitioner And The Regional Manager, Hyderabad Region, United India Insurance Company Limited, P.B. No. 1020, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad and four others …..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM REV. WAMP No. 2949 OF 2011 IN WRIT APPEAL No. 1482 OF 2000 ORDER: (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy) This application is filed with a prayer to review the order dated 13-07-2010 passed in Writ Appeal No. 1482 of 2000. The petitioner herein filed Writ Petition No. 12528 of 1993 with a prayer to call for the records relating to the memorandum dated 12-01-1993 issued by the 1st respondent and to quash the same as being illegal and arbitrary. The subsidiary relief of setting aside the promotion of respondent Nos.3 and 4 was also sought. The writ petition was allowed by the learned single Judge through judgment dated 25-09-2000. Aggrieved by that, respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed the writ appeal. It appears that the Division Bench of this Court which passed the order under review was impressed mostly by the fact that the interim orders granted while admitting the writ appeal remained in force through out. At the end, it was observed that respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall consider the case of the petitioner as per the directions issued by the learned single Judge. However, in the very sentence it was mentioned that the consideration need not be in compliance with any positive direction. Heard Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel for the respondents. One of the grounds urged in the review petition is that the posting of the case was not noticed on account of failure to show the name of the counsel for the petitioner in the cause list. That however does not appear to be correct. We verified the cause list and the names of the advocates were properly printed. Notwithstanding the incorrectness of the first contention, the fact remains that the order under review came to be passed without hearing the counsel for the petitioner herein. We are conscious of the fact that the review petition is not an avenue of appeal and even if a different view is possible on the same set of facts, it cannot be expressed. We however find some lack of clarity in the ultimate direction issued in the order under review. On the one hand, it was directed that the case of the petitioner herein shall be considered in accordance with the directions issued by the learned single Judge, and on the other hand, it was mentioned that it need not be as a measure of positive direction. There hardly exists any consistency in this behalf. The learned single Judge gave a clear finding that respondent Nos.3 and 4 did not participate in the competitive examination and they were not entitled to be considered. The said finding assumed finality. The case of the petitioner has to be considered accordingly. We, therefore, dispose of the review petition directing that the case of the petitioner shall be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer by treating her as qualified and that respondent Nos.4 and 5 did not participate in the competitive examination for that purpose. The exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from today. It is brought to our notice that the petitioner has already been promoted. The exercise indicated by us shall be limited to the extent of fixing the date of notional promotion. ___________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J ____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 07-07-2014 ks