N.K. Jain, J. - (1.) This review petition is filled in view of the order of the Supreme Court dated 7.4.1994 against the judgment of this Court dated 28.9.1993 whereby the order of the learned Single Judge was upheld.
(2.) In pursuance of the show cause notice issued by this Court, Mr. M.R. Singhvi filed reply on behalf of respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 and Mr. Jangir has filed reply on behalf of the respondent No.3.
(3.) The non-petitioners raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the review petition. It has been stated that in the garb of this review petition, the Advocate on record has made some new persons No. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 as party who were not party in the original writ petition and by this attempt the petitioners practised fraud upon the Court as they were never party in the original writ petition No. 4426/93, D.B.C. Special Appeal No. 600/93 and not before Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India. It has also been stated that the petitioners have tried to enlarge the scope of the review petition by placing new material on record of the persons who were not even party. The petitioners have made reference of the facts of writ petition No. 6178/92 Prem Prakash v. State to mislead the Court. On merits also the respondents filed reply submitting that there was no occasion to file reply as the writ petition was dismissed in limine. In the reply the respondents have stated that the present petitioners never pursuaded their regular course of study nor their names were entered in the regular scroll register of the school. It has also been stated that the writ petition and the special appeal are rightly rejected and there is no error apparent on the face of record.;