C. Rev. No. 29/2009 13.7.2010 Present: Mr.Onkar Jairath, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. AG for respondents 1 to 3. Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate for respondent No.4. Heard and gone through the record. This review petition by Kailash Thakur is directed against our order dated 22nd May, 2009, by which we accepted the writ petition of respondent Bhim Sen, challenging the order of the then State Administrative Tribunal dated 2.7.2004 and partly set aside the order of Tribunal, directing the State functionaries to appoint the present review petitioner as Vidya Upasak. It is stated that when the matter was decided, the post of Vidya Upasak had been converted into the post of JBT teacher and this fact could not be brought to the notice of the Court. This is no ground for review. The review petitioner was appointed as Vidya Upadak pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, which we partly set aside by our order dated 22.5.2009 and consequently, even if the post had, by that time been converted into that of JBT, his appointment as JBT teacher as a consequence of his appointment as Vidya Upasak, is also bad and he will cease to be a JBT teacher, in view of our aforesaid judgment and the direction given in para 10 of that judgment. Second ground of review is that since other persons, whose score was higher than that of review petitioner had not approached the Court, the Court was not justified in holding that the review petitioner could not have been given appointment as some other candidates with higher score were there. In support of this contention, reliance is placed upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Ashok alias Somanna Gowda and another Vs. State of Karnataka (1992) 1 SCC 28. The judgment, in our considered view, does not come to the rescue of the review petitioner because in that case, the court had devised certain criteria for assessment of merit and the argument advanced was that in case merit of other candidates was also assessed, according to such criteria, their score could have been higher than that of the candidate before the Court. It was in that context that the Court held that the relief could be granted only to those persons who had approached the Court. In any case, neither of the grounds on which the review is applied for, is a good ground for review of the aforesaid judgment dated 22.5.2009. Consequently, review petition is dismissed. ( R.B.Misra ), J. ( Surjit Singh ), J. 13th July, 2010(sl)