GHANSHYAM RAI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of present application, the applicants are seeking review of the order dated 25.4.2007. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of applicants submitted that the First Medical Board found physical measurements of the applicants in full conformity which was stipulated in advertisement. The same was also approved by the Second Medical Board. However, the applicants were subjected to physical measurements by the Third Medical Board wherein the applicants physical measurements were not found in conformity with the prescribed measurements. He submitted that the reference to the Third Medical Board for physical measurements was unjustified. He submitted that before the learned Single Judge the only submission made was that the applicants may be permitted to appear before the Medical Board and this contention was not accepted, against which Special Appeal No. 518 of 2007 was filed. He submitted that the special appeal has been decided on a wrong premises and, therefore, the order dated 25.4.2007 be recalled/reviewed. We do not find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the applicants. This Court has dismissed the special appeal with the following observations: "Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants and learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) IN our view, the issue involved in the present Special appeal is squarely covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Versus Param Hansh Singh (2001 (3) A.W.C. Page 2106). The Division Bench of this Court has observed as follows:

(3.) THE aforesaid judgement was dictated in open Court and in presence of learned counsel for the applicants. No objection has been raised in respect of the narration of fact and submissions referred in the judgement. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that the counsel for the applicants has not made the submissions stated in the order and has submitted that the appellants may be permitted to appear again before the Board. Even otherwise, a perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge shows that the reference to the Third Medical Board had not been challenged, inasmuch as the petitioners had participated in the physical measurements taken by the Third Medical Board. Learned counsel for the applicants is not able to show any Rules or Regulations by which the applicants are entitled to another attempt. Further , learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the prayer on the ground that after 6 -7 years now allowing the applicants to appear before the Medical Board could not only be arbitrary but cumbersome to the State Authority. In view of the above, we do not see any reason to recall or review the order dated 25.4.2007. The review petition is accordingly dismissed.