Chandrapal Patel v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 193 of 2019 Chandrapal Patel S/o Lakshman Kumar Patel Aged About 36 Years Assistant Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Navrangarhpur, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. R/o Village Barpali, Post Nawapara, Block Tahsil and District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Under Secretary Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Post Office and Police Station Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Director Directorate Of Health Services, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4. Chief Medical And Health Officer Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

5. Gautam Prasad Verma Assistant Medical Officer, Primary Health Center Ramgarh, District Korea, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. H. B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Richa Dwivedi, Advocate For State :

Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 05/11/2019

1. The present review petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 30.08.2019 passed in WPS No. 6638/19.

2. Perusal of the records would show that in fact, the order against which the review has been sought for has already been tested before the

Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.414/19. The Division Bench also did not find any good ground for entertaining the appeal, thereby the order stood affirmed. The review petition has been filed only on the ground that this Court in some other writ petition while disposing of the writ petition had granted interim protection and therefore petitioner in the instant case also should be granted similar interim protection. The said ground raised would never be a ground for entertaining the writ petition.

3. It is settled position of law that review petition could be entertained only in the event of an error apparent on the face of record. The petitioner has failed to show any error apparent on the face of record.

4. Given the facts, this Court does not find any merits in the review petition and same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit