RAM DAS UPADHAYAY Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition No. 23829 of 1995 was disposed by a detail reasoned order on 31.7.1998. The case was argued by Mr. Pradeep Kumar Saxena at length and the points raised by him finds mentioned in the second paragraph of the said order.

(2.) The petitioner has filed this Review Application No. 52533 of 1998 through Shri M. P. Singh learned counsel.

(3.) The contention of Mr. Singh that the determination or finding in the said order to the extent that the petitioner was in fourth position and that other persons were seniors to the petitioner was an error apparent on the face of the record. He contends that the facts, which were not taken into consideration by the Court when passing the order dated 31.7.1998, are summarised in paragraph 14 of the review application. Relying on the said statement, he contends that by reason of the said fact it is apparent that the petitioner was at serial number 1 and the senior-most teacher. Therefore, on the basis of such fact, the finding in the order dated 31.7.1998 is a finding which is an error apparent on the face of the record. He also contends that one more writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being Cvil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5874 of 1989 which is still pending where these facts were incorporated and those facts were not taken into consideration.