APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS ¢é Review Pefifion No.28 of 2009 5mm of Chhm‘Tisgar‘h, The $ecre1‘ar‘y Deparfmen’r of Educafion, D.K.S. Bhuwan, Raipur‘ (C.G.) The Director Public Insfruch'on, Chha‘rfisgarh Governmenf Ruipur, Disi’r. Raipur (C.G.) The Dis’rric'r Educah‘on Officer, Block Bodlu, Dis‘r. Janjgir Champa (C.6.) Heera Lal Karsh, aged abou‘r 38 year‘s, S/o Shri Duje Rum Karsh, Assisfam‘ Teacher, GOVT. Middie School, Birgchni, (Champa) Block Baloda, DisTric‘r—Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Indra Singh Chandra, S/o Shri Gokul Pmsad Chandra, aged abouf 37 years, Assisfan‘r Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Mukia, Block Jaijaipur, Dis‘lricf Janjgir Champa (C.6.) Dilmohan Chandra, S/o Shri Na’n‘uram Chandra, aged abou‘l 37 years, Assisfam‘ Teacher, GOVT. Middle School, Kashigarh, Block Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Lakhan Lal Karsh, S/o Shri Budhram Karsh, aged abouf 4O years, Assisfanf Teacher, Gov‘r. Primary School, Baheradih, Block Jaijaipur, Disfrici Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Krishna Kumar Khare, 5/0 Shri Samaru Ram Khare, aged aboui’ 38 years, Assisfani Teacher, Gov’r. Primary School, Gudrukala, Block Jaijaipur, Disiricf Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Pawan Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri Aghori Ram Sahu, aged aboui 38 years, Assisian’r Teacher, éovi. H.S. School, Choriya, Block Bamhnidih, Disiric‘r Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Ramdayal Dadsena, S/o Shri Fir’ru Ram Dadsena, aged about 38 years, Assis’rani Teacher, Gov‘r. Primary School, Bhadara, Block Bamhnidih, Disiricf Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Timal Lal Chandra, S/o Shri Bidurlal Chandra, aged abouf 39 years, ASS‘H‘. Teacher, Govt Primary School, Basanipur, Block Bamgnidih, Disiric’r Janjgir Champa (C.G.) SanT Ram Sahu, S/o Shri Kar‘rik Ram Sahu, aged aboui 36 years, Assh‘. Teacher, Govt Primary School, Darang, Block Bamhnidih, Disfric‘r Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Krishna Kumar Kashyap, S/o Shri Sikh Ram Kashyap, aged about 38 years, Assis‘ran‘r Teacher, Gov’r. Primary School, Ka‘iara, Block Baloda, Disiricf Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Barsan Pra’rap Singh Gond, 5/0 Shri Upas 11. Singh Gond, aged about 38 years, Upper Vs 1. 10. b g7 Divisicn Teacher, Govt Middle School, Baksam, Block Balod&, District Janjgir' Champa (C.G.) 12. Love Kumar Koushik, S/o shri Ram Jag Koushik, aged abouf 38 years, Assisfam Teacher, Govt Middle School, Bhais’mr‘u, Block Akal’ram, Disfric’r Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 9 13. Ani! Kumar‘ Dewangan, S/o Shr'i Dhaniram Dewangan, aged cbou‘r 39 year's, Assf? Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Goud, Block Nowagarh, Dis’rric‘l Janjgir Champa (C.G.) O R D E R (In chamber) (Passed on 1g.6.2009) Dhirendra Mishra, J: 1. The appellanT—S‘lm‘e and i‘ls officers have filed This applica‘rion and prayed for review of The order dafed 6.2.2009 passed by lhis Cour? in W.P. (s) No.349/09. Appellanis have also preferred an applicaiion for condonaiion of delay as fhe review pefi’rion has been preferred wifh a delay of 31 days. 2. For fhe reasons indica‘red in fhe application dated 08.04.2009 for condona‘rion of delay, which is also supporfed by fhe affidavif of Shri B.L. Kurre, D.E.O., Bilaspur, ‘rhe applicafion for condonafion of delay is allowed and delay is condoned. 3. If is seffled law fhaf fhe High Courf exercises power of review as a Courf of plenary jurisdicfion To preven‘r miscarriage of jusfice or fo correcf grave and palpable errors commi‘ifed by if. There are no definifive limifs To fhe exercise of the powers of review. The power of review may be exercised on The discovery of new and imporfanf maffer or evidence which, offer the exercise of due diligence, was nof within The knowledge of the person seeking fhe review or could nof be produced by him af fhe Time when The order was made. If may be exercised where some misfake or error apparenf on The face of The record is found. However, fhe power is To be exercised wiThin The limiTaTions as provided under SecTion 114 read wiTh Order 47 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. l,“ K . From perusal of The order under review and original record of W.P. (s) No.349/09, i‘r is evidenf fhc‘r offer hearing counsel for fhe pefifioner as well as ’rhe respondem‘s/Sfafe in defail fhe wri‘r petilion was allowed, subjecf f0 all verifications regarding ’rhe fac‘ls pleaded iny’rhe pefi’rion. Various circulars issued by fhe S’ra’re from fime 1‘0 Time referred lo in This applicafion, were also broughf f0 fhe noi'ice of fhis Courf a? fhe Time of argumenT as is evidenT from reading of fhe order under review. In The considered opinion of This CourT, no any ground as menTioned in The review peTiTion is available To The appeilanT-STaTe for review of The order daTed 6.2.2009. . Accordingly, The insTanT review peTiTion being wiThouT any subsTance deserves To be dismissed and is hereby dismiSSed.’ I ’ Sdéwisma Dh‘mei‘d‘ Eudge wn‘hwwwmw wm