r ^ IN THE HIGH COURT QF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR ^CHHATTISGARH REVIEW-APPLIGATieNNO. 10^ /2011 fE.rs rF&^ :-^~^ APPLICANT State ofChhattisgarh Through: The Secretary, Scheduled.Caste & Scheduled Tribe Development, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G) aBBlBBencB VERSUS RESPONDENTS": (1) ,Sujan Singh Kanwar, S/o Late Shri Dalsai .anwar, Aged about 59years, working as Circle Organizer, Block Educatioil Office, Katghora, Distt-Korba (C.G) f^^....'<" ^^-•^0 .^"^Y\ ^) Atul Pandey, Aged about 47 years, S/o Late 'V Shri Vibhuti Bhushan Pandey, presently working as Circle Organizer, O/o Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department, Distt-Jashpur (C.Q.) ^) -^•< B.L. Saral, Aged about 49 years, S/o Late Shri Sonsal Saral, presently working as Circle Organizer, Block Education Office, Patthalgaon, Distt-Jashpur (C.G.) G.R, Chauhan, Aged about 57 years, S/o . Shri Mabha Ram, Presently working as Circle Organizer, Block Education Office, Jashpur, Distt.-Jashpur (C.G.) (.5)' S. Kujur, Age.d about 48 years, S/o Late Shri Bramil Kujur, Bloek Education Office, Kesawel, Distt.-Jashpur (C.G.) (@ S.K. Jangde, aged about 50 years, S/o Shri ^7 M.C. Jangde, presently working as Qrganizer,, Block Education Office, Kanker, Distt.-Kanker (C.G.) B.S. Raj, Aged about 45 years, S/o Shri Samar Singh Raj/presently working as Cirple Organizer, Assistant Commissioner Office, Tribal Welfare Department, Janjgir,. Distt.-Korba, Champa (C.G.) r tlt(8) F.R. Salam, Aged about 47 years, S/o Late ^ Shri S.R. Salam, presently working as Circle Organizer, Block Educatiori Office, Charama, Distt-Kanker (C.G.) ^ *< u^ R.D. Sahu, Agedabout 47 years, S/o Shri R.C. Sahu presently working as Circle Organizer, Block Education Office, Pratappyr, Distt-Sarguja (C.G.) [10) Manoj Kumar Shrivastava, Aged about 47 years, S/o Late Shri G.P. Shrivastava presently working as Circle Organizer, Block Education Office, Pali, Distt- Korba(C.G.) (11) R.K. Otti, Aged about 44 years, S/o Late ^ Shri Maya Ram Otti, Presently working as Circle Organizer, Block Education Office, Jagdalpur, District-Jagdalpur (C.G.) (12) B.K. Dubey, Aged about 47 years, S/o Shri C.M.Dubey, preseritly working as Circle Qrganizer, Block Education Office, Farasgaon, Distt-Bastar (C.G.) (13) D.R. Thakur, aged about $7 years, S/o Shri ^' L.R. Thakur, presently working as Circle Organizer, Block Education Office, Bhanupratappur, Distt-Kanlcer (C.G.) (14) G.K. Khare, aged about 48 years, S/o Shri J.P. IChare, presently working as Circle Organizer, Block Education Office, Bastar, «, Distt-Bastar (C.G.) (15) y.K, Ogre, aged about 49 years, S/o Shri ^ K.C. Ogre presently working as Circle Organizer, Block Education Office, Podi Uproda, Distt-Korba (C.G.) •^16) L.N. Patel, aged about 44 years, S/o Late Shri Nakul Patel^ presently working as Circle Organizer, Block Education Office, D^ntewada (C.G.) (17) V.P. Pandey, aged about43 years,S/o Late Shri D.S. Pandey, presently working as Circle Organizer, Block Education Office^ Sitapur^Distt-Sargiija (C.G.) ..A ^ <18) D.K. Yadav, aged about 47 years, S/o Shri r^ L.R. Yaday, presently working as Ctrcle Organizer, Block Education Offiee, Distt- Raipur(C.G.) R.G. Thakur, aged about 54 years, S/o Late Shri Ramdas Thakur, presently working as Circle Organizer, Block Education Office, Batauli, Distt-Sarguja (C.G) ;^- (2Q) Shiv Lal Nag, aged about 47 years, S/o Late Shri B.RNag, presently working as Circle Organizer, Block Education Office, Bagbahra, Distt-Mahasamund (C.G.) (21) R.K. Baghele, aged about 5Q years, S/o Shri RajaramBagheleypresentlyworkingas Circle Organizer, Block Education Office, Ambagardh Chowki, Distt-Rajnandgaon (C.G.) . "(22) ^ *vc L.L. Churendra, aged about 44 years, S/o Shri Indrajeet Singh Churendm, presently working as Circle Organizer, Block Education Office, Gariaband, Distt-Raipur (C.G.) (23) A.K. Agnihotri, aged about 45 years, S/o Shri R.P. Agnihotri, presentlyworking as Circle Organizer, Assistant Commissioner (Tribal Welfare)Korba(C.G.) (2^) Mahabeer Chauhan, aged about 54 years, S/o Shri C.L. Chauhan, presently working as Circle Organizer, Block Education Office, Lundra, Distt-Sarguja (C.G.) (2^) A.K. Thakur, agedabout44 years, S/o Shri M.R. Thakur, presently working as Circle Organizer, Block Education Office, Durgukondal, Distt-Kanker (C.G.) ^ (26) G.K. Mishra, agedabout45 years, S/o Shri R.S. Mishra,.presently working as Cirele Organizer, Block Education Office, Lailunga, Distt-Raigarh (C.G.) (27) D.K. Dubey, agedabout 51 years, S/o Shri < C.P. Dubey, presently working as Circle Organizer, Block Education Office, Chhura, Distt-Raipur(C.G.) . ^1(28) S.L. Dhritlahre, aged about 48 years, S/o Shri Begraha Dhntlahre, presently working as Circle Ofganizer, Block Education Office, Pakhanjur, Distt-Kanker (C.G.) ;(29) Chhattisgarh Public Service Commissioner through the Secretary, Raipur (C.G.) •^ <^ FE-T^TI oi^ ^ ^PPLICATIONFORRfiVIEW OF THE ORDERDATED /IO/03/2010 ,.^ r/,^^, A^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR '7 V APPLICANT REVIEW PETITION No. 108 of2011 State ofChhattisgarh. VERSUS '^ RESPONDENTS Sujan Singh Kanwar & Others. PETITION FOR REVIEW OF THE ORDER DATED 10.03.2010. SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Present: Shri V.V.S.Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General for the State/applicant. ORDER (Passed on 18th day ofNovember, 2011) 1. The instant review petition has been filed by the State/applicant seeking review ofthe order dated 10.03.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2214 of 2008 (Sujan Singh Kanwar & 27 others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Another) wherein the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 to 28, herein, was allowed. 2. There is a delay of 537 days in preferring this review petition for which, the applicant has filed an application for condonation of delay, reiterating the same grounds which appears to be the ground for review and further, that the applicant had sought withdrawal of the Writ Appeal No. 338/2011, preferred against the order dated 10.03.2010., with liberty to file this review petition. Thus, sufficient reasons have been shown. Delay is condoned. 3. The applicant/State seeks review ofthe order dated 10.03.2010 on the ground that there were certain lapses in the process of making Chhattisgarh Scheduled Tribe & Scheduled Caste Development K. \ -s I^NNN^ ^ b- (Gazetted) Ser^ice, Recmitment Rules, 2006 (for short 'the Rules, 2006'). After publication of the Rules, 2006 in the State Gazette, the department initiated a process to remove the discrepancies in the Rules, 2006 which was initiated by the Additional Secretary of the Department, for necessary ratification and amendments in Schedule-I ofthe Rules, 2006. Accordingly, amendment was made and published in the State Gazette on 08.02.2011 (Annexure A/2). The Officer-in-Charge could not infonn the Court about the process initiated by the department. Thus, the order dated 10.03.2010 requires review. Having considered all the facts of the case, the grounds raised by the applicant/State cannot form the basis of review of the order dated 10.03.2010. Even, had this fact been informed to the Court that the process to amend the mles were initiated, that would not have made any difference as initiation of process in respect of amendment in the Rules, 2006 would have no meaning unless the rules are properly notified in the official gazettee. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the rules were notified in the official gazette on 08.02.2011 and the order sought to be reviewed was passed on 10.03.2010. Thus, this review petition is without any merit. Explanation to Rule 1 Order XLVI ofthe Code ofCivil Procedure, 1908 provides that the review on the basis ofthe judgment ofthe Court which has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of the superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for review of such judgment. Likewise, amendment of the rule subsequently, shall not be a ground for review ofthe order. |l-»Nd1^ ^ 6. Applying the well settled principles of review to the facts of the case, the applicant is seeking opportunity to argue the entire case afresh under the garb of review petition, which is not permissible and tenable in law. This review petition is in the nature of appeal which cannot be considered and decided by this Court. 7. Thus, the review petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit