IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Review No. 21 of 2006. Date of decision: 11.08.2008. Albar Ram ….. Petitioner Versus The Secretary(SAD)/Agriculture & Ors. … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. M.C. Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.M. Bisht and Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral): Reply has been filed by the respondent/university. The review petitioner in this petition has alleged that respondent No. 3 was not a matriculate in 1994 when he was promoted as supervisor. This fact has not been denied by the university in its reply. This Court while dismissing the writ petition in limine has been influenced by the fact that respondent No. 3 Surinder Kumar had become eligible for the post prior to the writ petitioner. According to Mr. Verma, Surinder Kumar was also not eligible for the post on 19.7.1994 when the post fell vacant. This question has 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 not been gone into by this Court, which was a question raised in the writ petition. This is an error apparent on the record. Therefore, we allow the review petition and recall the order dated 7.4.2006 and direct that the main writ petition be listed for admission before the appropriate Bench after one week. The review petition is accordingly allowed. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge ( V.K. Ahuja ) August 11, 2007 Judge (BSS)