&1 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGHCOURT QF CHHATTISGRH AT BILASPUR REVIEW PETITION N0. ^ OF 2008. '^/;?^. APPI^ICANTS :-€JugalKishoreAwasthi, sonof Shri Durga Prasad Awasthi, Aged about 44 years, resident of Near Durga Mandir, Charama, •fK'->-"i ff^ District Kanker (Chhattisgarh), ;..«,<'?y/ ^.^'^^w ••••^^.^^••t^fPoshanramSahu, son ofShri n ^ .^--<2"l^ _.- .. -. - _. . . - -_ ^.,...--'72-t> T •Girdharilal Sahu, aged about 48 years, resident of Village Dokla, Tahsil Charama, District Charama, District Kanker (Chhattisgarh), ^. Loknath, son of Late Ihaduram Sahu, aged about 49 years, resident of Community Health Center, Dhaneli kanhar, Village Nathiya Nawagaon, Tahsil and District Kanker (Chhattisgarh). VERSUS , M< State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Seeretary, Health Department, Govemment of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.), ^2. Joint Director Health Services, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur (Chtiattisgarh), NON-APPLICANTS ^ The Chief Medical Ofiieer, Jagdalpur (Chhattisgarh), ^^ The Chief Medical Officer, Kanker, District South Bastar Kanker(Chhattisgarh). REVIEWAPPLICATIONUNDERORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. ,//' 1 ri- o XV-OR-15 Review Petition No. 26/2008 JhLCUAMBER. Hon'ble Mr. Raieev Gupta, C.J. & Hon'ble WIr. Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. 24.10.2008 This petition has been filed for reviewing the judgment dated 3.3.2008 passed in writ petition No. 354/2005, whereby, the writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed by this Court. It appears that after dismissal of the writ petition by order dated 3.3.2008 two Special Leave Petitions (Civil)Nos. 9212/2008 & 9930/2008 were filed in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court passed the following orders: "Learned counsel for the petitioners state that they may be permitted to withdraw these petitions with a view to move the High Court by filing Review Petition. We express no opinion. The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of as withdrawn." The Review Petition contains that on the basis of circular dated 5.3.2008 now the cases of the petitioners can be considered for regularization in view of judgment of the Apex Court in case of Umadevi, because, the petitioners had completed 10 years services and they were working against the sanctioned posts. It is also contained in the Review Petition that as an affect ofthe order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 354/2005, the services of the petitioners have already been terminated and in abundant caution, the petitioners have challenged all this by filing another writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 2823/2008. In the facts and cireumstances of the case, we are not inclined to entertain this Review Petition, particularly in view of the provisions of Rule 90 L.._. '^K'"<J FS.200- 3/2007 -5.OU,1)00. 1 ^ (1) of High Court of Chhattisgarh Rutes 2007 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Review has to be entertained upon the ground of the discovery of new and important matter or evidence within the meaning of Order XLVII Rule 1 which means that an evidence existing at the time of passing of the order and not that which came into existence later on. In the present case, the circular dated 5.3.2008, admittedly, came into existence 3 days after passing of the judgment of this Court, therefore, that cannot be made a ground to review the earlier order. Moreover, the earlier order was passed taking note of the judgment of Umadevi's case and writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the appointments of the petitioners were in violation of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution and were de-hors the scheme of the Constitution and they were nullity on this account and also on account of authority of respondent No.3 ofthe writ petition. In view of the above, we do not find any substance in this Review Petition and the same is dismissed in chamber. The counsel be informed, Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge