^^^^•^^^•^' A^;Y- IN THl <±^^A-rtM4-^-uLr^r QiL^sru-^ FUbGE. RAXPVR- REVIEW PETITIOrsTNO. \c\ OF 2011 In the matter of: ^"" Writ Appeal No.130/2010 decided on 06.05.2010 between: sion Appellant: Respondents: Uttara Kumar Yadav Versus State of C.G. <& ors APPLICANT ^ppellant) /'Uttara Kumar Yadav, son of Shri ^^ Netram Yadav, aged about 37 yrs, . y''t^>" ^'^^^^ resident of Village/Post Sambalpur/ ^< /*^^..^\\ Tehsil Nawagarh, District Durg ^y '...(w""""""" " ' NZ3N-APPLICANTS l. State of Chhattisgarh, through lespondents) ^ the Secretary, Oepartment of Panchayat & Social Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur. 2. Collector, burg (CG) 3, Janpad Panchayat, Nawagarh, through the Chief Executive Officer, District burg (CG) REVIEW PETITION UNDER RULE 90 OF THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH RULES. 2007 ^' ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR DB: HON'BLE I.M. QUDDUSI 8s HON'BLB PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ Review Petition No. 19 of 2011 ^° Vs. APPEARANCB Mr. Diaesh Tiwad, counsel for fhe AppUcaat. Mr. Viaay Harit, Deputy Advocate General for fhe State/ respondents No, 1 & 2. Per I.M. OUDDUSI. J Heaid. ORDBR (ORALI (30.03.2011) 2. This review petition has been fUed agamst fhe order dated 06.05.2010 passed in Writ Appeal No. 130/2010 by which fhe CoUector was directed to ascertain the fact whefher fhe writ appeUaat was haviag requisite experience of niore fhaa. 8 months which was required for the post of SMksha Karmi Grade-III aiid if it is found fhat he was not haviag sufficient experience, appropnate orders niay be passed accordiagly, But m case it is found fhat tlie writ appellaat was haviag experience of inore fhaa 8 nionths at tlie tioie of selection aad fhe selection conunittee has rightiy awarded 5 inarks, he shaU be reiastated. Pursuaat to tlie above directions, the CoUector conducted an enquiry ia which fhe writ appellaiit pardcipated aad thereafter, an order was passed by the CoUector on 14.01.2011 which was challenged by fhe APPLICANT Uttara Kuiiiar Yadav RESPONDBNTS State of Chhattisgarh aad others ;.-^2S^^ .^j O^Jr petitioner ia a fresh writ petition which is stUl pendiag. It has been informed fhat ni the said writ petition, an iaterini order was passed which is stiU ia existence. Therefore, the directions issued ia our order passed in writ appeal, review ofwhich has been fUed, have coiapletely been exhausted. In the above circumstaaces, fhe leamed counsel for fhe petitioner has submitted fh.at fh.is review petition has been filed because of the reason fhat fhe review petitioner has not been reiastated despite the iateriia order passed io. the fi'esh writ petition. That cannot be a ground to review fhe order ia question. No error apparent on tiie face ofrecord has been poiated out and fhe leamed counsel for fhe petitioner has conceded fhat tlie review petitioner has participated ui fhe enquiry proceeduigs conducted pursuaat to fhe order in questlon. In view of fhe above, no case for review is aiade out. The review petition is inisconceived aad is therefore, disniissed at fhe niotion stage itsetf. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Rao