1 / 2 2025:CGHC:47197-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 191 of 2020 Jaipal, S/o Late Shri Baishakhu, Aged About 58 Years R/o Village - Chirport, Post - Matwari, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Government Of M.P. Through The Secretary, Technical Education And Manpower, Planning Department, Vallabh Bhavan, Bhopal M.P., District : Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 2 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Technical Education And Manpower Planning Department Ministry, D.K.S Bhavan, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director (Training) Industrial Training Institute, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Principal, Industrial Training Institute, Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Aniket Verma, Advocate. For State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 15.09.2025 Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This review petition is directed for reviewing the order dated 12.08.2010 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 254 of 2010, by which the writ appeal filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed. SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2025.09.17 17:46:24 +0530 2 / 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is an error on the face of the record, therefore, the order dated 12.08.2010 deserves to be recalled. 3. The writ petition (WPS No.3602/2005) filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed by learned Single Judge on 09.04.2010 holding that the petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis and later on he was regularized in service without following the constitutional process and the petitioner is not entitled for relief in light of the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3) and others 1 ; Government of Andhra Pradesh and others v. K. Brahmanandam and others 2 , and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others 3 . Against the said order, the petitioner herein preferred writ appeal No.254/2010 which was also dismissed vide order dated 12.08.2010 holding that the petitioner’s initial appointment itself was not only irregular but illegal and consequently in light of Umadevi (supra), dismissed the appeal. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through order under review, we do not find any error apparent on the face of records warranting exercise of review jurisdiction, consequently, this review petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE JUDGE Saurabh 1(2006) 4 SCC 1 22008) 5 SCC 241 3(2008) 10 SCC 1