; HIGH. CQ1IRT Of OHHATTTSGARH AT BJELASI' . ". -~ .:,•'• .aEYIEW_PETmGN,Ku. 23 ofZOGS. ApprTPjysfT • • Kam KrishairQoAE£^Sfe Sh" Shaaka^'Prasad Gorh^ Aged about 43 yeara, ^/p Brahma»paiauhampa. Distt.' :.^'',:',^1; ;_,' ^""- JanjgirChampa(CQ):f'^..,./'' ! ',. 1' ' ; ' ^ESSUS : , ,.. 1~: ! , ''1" ', ' ^»1"'?S!3EN'1-'^ lil ^ -iSe^tary-K'ishi '"Upaj' Mandi, . Ckaispa, Kota; Debri, ©istt.JanisirCfeani'Da'CCCi'). . ' , 2. Presidefft-Kns&fcJ.Sgai Mandi, Guampa, Kota Debri, . .©istt.JanjgirEIiaHlga:(f'<3'). • 3. Uy. Director-Ma^Hya Pradesli (now Chhattisgarh) Raya ^"sil^ ¥iga»n,:Mandi Board, .Bilaspui, Distt. 10Uaspur(€G:)?-.s ,' 4-i -; .-.,. .... ..;...::''.. ' ' 1 . '-^j;, . .. .'\'',i'''.1.. .1 ,l:'4.-:-Manag'ag; .^regtQr;^. 'Madhya •.^;Pradesh, : (now Ghhattisgarh) Xaivay Krishi Vipnan. '^Mandi Board; Saipur, Distt..82ip"r(CG). ' ^ ' , li^PPLICATIONI<'ORREyiEWTHK©RL)BRDM'EDl3.(i3.2008 ••BYCIRCULATKIN.-, ••;--•,•• ' ! .• 1 . •'hfcShri SatisfeJ£- <n.^-.,.,-J .,^- f\<^s'3'^--^. ^^^.^'^-- nf\f\ct\ ... ^.r'iasSsCl Oii Uo uay uIlViay, AUUO^ 1 - T'l'iis,i''e^risw DetitiQii is c-Qnsi<iers<i iutli^distnibsruilderliie Drovisioiis of ^"!e 76(2) "ftheHighCcmrtofGhhatticgarhRules, 2005. " 2,;..;^',B;' this petition, fh" applicaat seeks review ofthe order dated 13;03.2Q08 ^"^passed .in' W.P. 2724/2000 (Ram Kiis&aa Oorha Vs; Secretary, Krishi v ;, ^:.;'UpajMandi Ghasipaandothers);-'. •'.. : • ^"* ':':'"-~ ^.—' ! •.' . :1.- ^ ''•''• : 1 '.;:1- ' 3 This CQTjrt- ^ftsr h.^vin0 considfired sll liie asDects of tli's inatten dis&^^ the rletitiou hQldin£tliat th^ DQtitiQiier Tx/a.s a.uDoiiitsd QH dail -^QCTfts; hil^ii: ,rI^a?-jorRft fUe co^ins.ftitithriiia? ^ch^nrte' of> ni^biic ern^lnvme^ ^...^^—^^L-^*^•^.^^^•...^.•..^...v ^..~-^-^^...,.»^^^^u.^ ^^-.<^.^- .-^^. .Jf--.^.—.<-.^*^^*^^^-,.-^ snd as such snDointniciit QfDetitioil^r ^ Th^ r?stitioh§rcould iint cl^iiil aiiv rQSulariz^ti6ii or reilistsstenicnt iB ih©SGF/'ics 011 ths basis ••^^A.wji...ji.3-i-^fi;.t:^-^., .^-.t.^ ^^.t.t^^t.->.<.-i>'^->-t.»^A^ -i.lA- •'•^A-a i^—.^t-^'-.w 1--^.^. »J1^.». •wt—U^.U^. ^^o£hisADDQi!Tithieti1,:nndpilvwBgfs^ba,sis. / 4-; Applicaiit seekfi reyiew on the. grouis^ that tiiis Gourt has not cdiisidered ..-..^.^Jiie obsCTvation "f1lie Supreme CoBrt coBtained in paragraph 53, m fhe e.ase of Secretar5'',.Stafe bfKaniatafca aad otheis Vs. Uma Devi (3) afid sthers1, "whereiii, the Supreme Gourt in tiie matter pf ^ irtegu&rj appoiirtments (not illegal appoiutmen^ bbsersed that^^^^te Tndia,theStateCk)Yenimentsaadthfiirmstramenta}rtiesshould to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of sueh irfegnlariy appomted, who have.worited for ten years"or more m duly sanct^ postg but tiot under cpver of cTd'srs^of coarts "r tribuna!s "asd should fai'tller diisure tliat r^sutar I'ecruitiiient arft iijidertalccu to fill tliOss vslGant sanctioned posts that require to t>e fited up, in Sasec where lemporary empleyees prd^!y wagers ai^ bemgnowempiOyed.Tfaeprocessmurf^^ set "i motioa withi" a perio3 bf six monttis fi-om the date pftlie judgment and Qfdet in the matter ,of .Secretary, State pf Kamataka arid otheTS y. Uma..Devi (Supra).: _. ''..'.. ''' •" . : : ' ' ! - . '. '' • 1 ' ^ - ':' ' The<}bservafioriofffieSupreme£^rt'^sma4emthecas&o^^^ appoiirtments not in case df il'egat appoitrtments. The mstaitt'case is a caSe of 'llegal appomtipent, as 'tfo sai'>ie was made dehorse the constifutiQHBl schexii's QfetTiDloviTi6iit ' Tfae npplicant faas not raised aay qther pernussible gTQua<}s under tfafi proyisions -of Onier 47 Rule 1 of the Code of ciyil Procedure.-i.e. discpvery of new ^arid important matter or evidence which, after 1the exerciss of due diligemce was acrt TOthin Ms knov^ producedbyhimatthetimewheiitheorderwaSpassedQFordermade,dr on accouHtof some mistafceor em^appareiitQn the fax»ofrecord, <M'&r aay othersuf&cientreason. • . . -: ^ 7. PriKciple of law'" regar^ t" review nftfis brder is'Mell setded by-se^ judicial pronpuncsmeirts ofahe H^'b's^Supr^e^^e •2Q06(4)SCCI I!'] j:!il ^^'B3j!;:.XI^e^'^fia^^?.S^;3^%'n;KK^^ l,etej,v&. £%i<;^:^J'?ate^a^o^eSKS?,^^^t^^ •sovi,olhers^, Gavewttnent ^ZIA^';g^.^B^'»^-M;'^«<3?;^^^MW^pa^: alker^ aSsd.Kerla State Eleeifncily Bpard vs. HfSecJi Electrofkermics & iiy^'opQwerIj^iS^o^gr^. :1 •::'.'^^ :;/;'^1''':' r::.'''1'^:'^ Applyuig Ae weil settled pnrieiples of !aw to the pi-eseirt case, AUere is no grou"d availab'efbr reviewQftheoiderdated 13^)3.2008 undes'thegari? o^ the review pefitio", the p^itionerseeks as oppodimity to argue tKe entire case alresli which w<mld amounifo conyertthe review petition into an anneal siid thc s^-nie is iiot su^tsit1fibls iulaw. - : A.S a result £t1d iii visw of the fQresoins. this rcvie\v ^"tslicalioH is dismissed. N6 ordes-as to costs. Sahn Sd/- SatishK.Agmhotri Judge ' !!AIK.1995SC455 'AIR 2000 SC 1650 " A1R.2006SC85 5 2005 (2) SGC 332 •'2nQ5(65SG*C6si