WPSB No.287/09 Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. (REVIEW APPLN. NO.442/11) Mr. A.S. Rawat, Advocate for the review applicant. Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, Addl. CSC for respondent no.1. Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Advocate for respondent no.2. Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate for respondent no.4. The review applicant seeks review of the order in order to enable the review applicant to reargue the matter. That is not permissible in law. Review application is accordingly dismissed. (Correction Application No.6173/11) Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate for the applicant. The second sentence of the judgment “But he [respondent no.4] did not secure 50 percent marks at post graduation”, is sought to be corrected, inasmuch as, the respondent no.4 had obtained more than 50 percent marks in his post graduation. This correction is being sought on the basis of the documents, for the first time brought on record of the case, by filing the correction application. We are disinclined, therefore, to make such correction. However, we make it clear that as would be evidenced from an order under correction that the said sentence had no role to play in deciding the matter. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 11.07.2011 Rdang