NARAIN LAL SAINI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this review petition are that the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court by a reasoned order dated March 11, 2008. In the review petition, it has been stated that certain facts escaped the notice of this Court and only on that ground this review petition has been preferred. It is stated that the petitioner has completed 17 years of service as Patwari and there was no complaint against his work. The petitioner given out that he has placed on record Govt, orders in order to show that Patwar Examination was exempted to similarly situated persons who has worked for long time. The petitioner was not given any chance to appear in the Patwar examination. The petitioner stated that similarly situated persons were absorbed on the post of Class IV but he was not absorbed. The case reported in Sadhna Lodh (2003) 3 SCC 524 is not applicable to his case but his case is covered by the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi reported in 2006(4) SCC 1.

(2.) THE respondents filed affidavit to controvert the submissions made in the review petition. In the affidavit it has been averred that the writ petition was decided by this Court after hearing the parties on 11.3.2008 by a reasoned order and there is no error apparent on the face of the record which requires review of the order passed by this Court. THE submissions made before this Court were considered while deciding the writ petition. THEre is no averment by way of affidavit that particular submissions were made and were not considered as such no case is made out for review. THE petitioner is neither fulfilling the requisite qualification of Patwari nor was appointed on the said post as such question of allowing him to work as patwari does not arise. His engagement was initially on daily wages and subsequently given fix emoluments. To acquire qualification of Patwari and to apply for the post lies on the petitioner therefore the question of relaxation does not arise. Lastly a prayer was made that the review petition is not maintainable.

(3.) IN Thungabhadra INdustries Ltd. vs. Govt. of A.P. (AIR 1964 SC 1372), the Apex Court held that a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereof an erroneous decision can be corrected.