STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. KUSUMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Additional Government Advocate for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent, the original writ petitioner.

(2.) The instant review petition is filed contending that this Court has erred in holding that inadvertence would not disentitle the respondent from seeking an appointment as a staff nurse. In our opinion, the same is a finding consciously rendered by this Court and this Court has termed the entry "No" in the column regarding experience certificate as an inadvertence, as we had found that the petitioner had placed on record her experience certificate and has also detailed in the application, her service details. That apart, it was on record that the petitioner therein was discharging duties as a staff nurse on contractual basis with a Government hospital, despite this glaring fact, the petitioners have deemed it necessary to prefer this review petition. Apparently, no error apparent on the face of the record is pointed-out.

(3.) The petition being woefully devoid of merits, is dismissed with cost. At this stage, the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that order has been complied with and in that view, it is prayed that the order imposing cost be waived. In view of the fact that the petitioners herein have already implemented the order of this Court, imposition of costs stands waived.