Amitava Lala, J - (1.) . - This is a review application. In an application of review either a subsequent new fact or a question of law, which was not considered at the time of hearing has to be taken into account. An application for review has to be made under the prescribed format.
(2.) This review application is made with certain grounds which appear to be not new. Ultimately the original writ petitioner made his submission that if in the third paragraph the words "Director of School Education" are deleted by incorporating the word "District Inspector of Schools" with a further direction upon him to form a DLI team for inspection etc. then the order will be perfectly alright. Such submission was vehemently opposed by the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State. According to them, the order, so passed, is perfect in nature and there is no question of review is needed to be made. Moreover, the question, whatever the petitioner is inclined to raise, has already been raised but the same was turned down by the Court as will be available from the first paragraph of the order dated 19th October, 2001.
(3.) Whatever the submission might be, I have independently gone through the writ petition annexed with the review application. There, I find that the petitioners sought for writ of mandamus for revocation of the Office Memorandum No. 234 (3) C.C. dated 11th September, 2001. Such memorandum is an order of the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Murshidabad under which such authority observed that as he is not the sanctioning authority of the respective posts. The appointments so made earlier were not made properly observing the prevalent recruitment rules. Lot of discussions were made in respect of staff pattern. If such order is directed to be revoked then the existing order of appointment will be survived.;