(1.) In the present Review Petition the applicant has alleged that the order dated April 26,2005 suffers from glaring mistake and there is error apparent on the face of record. The applicant submits that there are sufficient reasons to obtain a review of the aforesaid order passed by this Tribunal. The applicant has averred that the perusal of the impugned order dated 23.3.2005 as per Annexure -A/1 annexed with the Original Application would show that the applicant was transferred from Pragpur to Nirmand, District Kullu and no one was posted in his place at Pragpur. Therefore, the statement of the learned Additional Advocate General noticed by this Tribunal that the substitute of the applicant has already joined in the place of the applicant is contrary to the record which constitute error apparent on the face of record. Moreover, there is no where mentioned in the policy that an employee who has served tribal area cannot be transferred again to tribal area. It is averred that the transfer policy on page 87 of the Hand Book on Recruitment, Promotion and other Service Matters, Vol -II (1986 Edn.) (e) only such person as have not earlier served in tribal areas be posted there.
(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General and have gone through their pleadings very carefully. The main grouse of the applicant is that the applicant has already served tribal area and Govt. servant cannot be repeatedly transferred to such area. Second growing taken by the applicant is that substitute of the applicant has not joined at Pragpur i.e. in place of the applicant. In the present case the applicant was not transferred by the respondents department to tribal are as Nirmand is not a tribal area. So for as the second ground taken by the applicant is concerned that the substitute of the applicant has not joined at Pragpur, the learned Additional Advocate General has produced letter issued by the Director of Agriculture, dated April. 29, 2005 which was faxed through telephone No. 2626373 dated April 29,2005 vide which it has been submitted that Shri Gurdev Singh Jassal, Subject Matter Specialist has been relieved from his duties on 23.3.2005 (E.N.) In his place Shri Arvind Kumar Gupta has joined as Subject Matter Specialist at Development Block, Pragpur on 26.4.2005 (E.N.) Therefore, both of the ground referred to above is totally contrary to the record and there is no error apparent on the face of the record. No new facts has been brought by the applicant in this Review Petition. Letter dated April 29, 2005 issued by the Directors of Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh shows that the applicant has concealed the material facts from this Tribunal. Because the applicant was relieved by the respondent department on 23.3.2005 and the substitute of the applicant has joined on 26.4.2005 (A.N.) and the present Original Application was filed by the applicant on April 25, 2005 and the same was rejected by this Tribunal on April 26, 2005. It is well settled position of law by the Honble Apex Court in Chandra Kanta and Another vs. Sheik Habib, AIR 1975 SC 1500 which reads as under; - "That a review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. A mere repetition through different counsel of old and everruled arguments, a second trip ever ineffectually covered ground or minor mistake of inconsequential import are obviously insufficient.
(3.) The Honble Apex Court in Ariba, Tuleshwar Sharma vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma and others AIR 1979 SC 1047 has observed as under: - "..The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was net within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced b y him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may else be exercised on any analogous ground. But it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits.