Sanjay Kumar Sinha And ANR v. The Union Of India And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No.389 of 2017 ====================================================== Sanjay Kumar Sinha & Anr ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The Union Of India & Anr ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Abhinav Srivastava For the Respondent/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD) Date : 23-11-2017 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The review application has been filed for review of the order and judgment 29.08.2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7658 of 2017. In course of argument learned counsel for the petitioners once again attempted to take us to the merits of the case of the parties, which we decline to go into because sitting in our review jurisdiction our consideration would not be more than correcting an error apparent on the face of the record in the order under review. Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, learned counsel representing the petitioners, has pointed out that on page 3 of the order, the words 'select year 1996' has been wrongly typed as it should be 'allotment year 1996'. To that extent the word 'select' needs to be

Patna High Court C. REV. No.389 of 2017 dt.23-11-2017 2/2 corrected as 'allotment'. However, that correction would not have any bearing upon the decision.

In his last attempt to get a review of the order, learned counsel further points out that the observations made in the order that 'Through the present writ application effort is sought to be made to unsettle the promotions which were granted to certain persons as well as the year of allotment.', we would say that this observation has come only on perusal of the records and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal where it has specifically come that the petitioners had raised the grievance with respect to the selections made for the vacancies for the year 1998-2000. It is only in that context what was held by the Tribunal has been taken note of by us in the order under review.

There is no error apparent on the face of the record and the review application is held to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) ( Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Pawan/- AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.

CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 23.11.2017 Transmission Date N/A