HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 130 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ravi Shanker Tewari, learned counsel for applicant. 2. Application for Review of judgment and order dated 12.09.2025 passed in Writ - A No. - 10603 of 2025 has been sought primarily on ground that by means of aforesaid judgment, liberty had been granted to petitioners to participate in the interview slated to be held from 08.09.2025 till 12.09.2025 for the post of Medical Officer (Unani) in terms of advertisement dated 14.06.2025. A further direction was also issued that result with regard to petitioners shall be declared by the Commission. It was also indicated in judgment that directions are being issued as a special case, not to be treated as a precedent. 3. Learned counsel for review-applicant submits that there is error apparent on the face of record since direction has been passed contrary to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Rekha Sharma v. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur reported in AIRONLINE 2024 SC 565. Reference has been made to paragraph- 16 thereof to submit that candidates who consciously took part in the process of selection cannot be permitted to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by respondents for making selection, on their having been declared unsuccessful in the preliminary examinations. It is therefore submitted that the petition itself was not maintainable. 4. On the basis of instructions, it is however admitted by learned counsel for review-applicant that despite liberty having been granted to petitioners for participation in the interview process, they voluntarily did not participate and the said interview process has already ended Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ravi Shanker Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : U.P. Public Service Commission Thru. Chairman Prayagraj And Another .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Deptt. Ayush (Unani) Lko. And 5 Others .....Opposite Party(s) on 12.09.2025. 5. In view of the said facts and circumstances, it is thus evident that directions issued by this Court by means of judgment and order dated 12.09.2025, were in fact rendered infructuous since the petitioners failed to participate in the interview process. Concomitantly, there was no occasion for the Commission to have declared their results. 6. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is evident that the judgment and order under review has in fact lost its efficacy and no benefits thereof can be taken by petitioners at this stage. 7. Learned counsel for review-applicant submits that inadvertently, the relief granted to petitioners was as a result of inadvertent consent of counsel. However, from a perusal of order impugned order, it is quite evident that the judgment has been rendered in light of decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Amrit Yadav v. State of Jharkhand and others, CIvil Appeals 13950-13951 of 2024 and was not at all on the basis of any consent expressed or implied, by the counsel for the Commission. 8. In view of aforesaid, there does not appear to be any occasion to entertain the Review Application particularly considering the directions which have been issued in the impugned judgment itself that such benefit was being granted to petitioners therein as an exceptional case and was not to be treated as a precedent. 9. Resultantly, there being no occasion to entertain the Review Application, the same is dismissed. October 30, 2025 kvg/- CMRA No. 130 of 2025 2 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench