Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135152 Court No. - 5 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 58 of 2025 Applicant :- State Of Up Through Secretary Social Welfare Opposite Party :- Km. Priyanka Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Srivastava,Sheetla Prasad Gound Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sankalp Narain Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. The order under review is dated 10.01.2024 whereas this review application alongwith delay condonation application is filed on 30.07.2025, i.e., with a delay of 538 days. 2. Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, appearing for review-applicants (Respondents in Writ Petition), submits that initially the State was advised to file a special appeal against order under review, however, later on basis of a detail report it was revealed that initial appointment/ approval of petitioner by District Basic Education Officer concerned was a fraud document, therefore, this review application is filed. 3. Sri Sankalp Narain, learned counsel for petitioner in writ petition, has relied on certain judgments of Supreme Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General and others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another, 2012(1) SCR 1045; Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and others, 2013(11) SCR 25; The State of Bihar and others vs. Deo Kumar Singh and others (Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 13348 of 2019), decided on 09.05.2019; The State of Andhra Pradesh vs. M. Srinivasa Rao (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 9616 of 2020), decided on 28.08.2020; The State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Bherulal (Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 9217 of 2020), decided on 15.10.2020; State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Sabha Narain and others (Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 25743 of 2020), decided on 22.01.2021; and, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramkumar Chaudhary, 2024 INSC 932 and submits that there is a huge delay of more than 500 days and there is no sufficient cause to condone delay as well as no special treatment may be given to State. He also submits that in the garb of a review application a matter cannot be reheard. 4. I have considered the above submissions and perused the material on record. 5. There is a huge delay of more than 500 days in filing present review application. In the affidavit in support of application for condonation of delay there is no sufficient reason to condone the aforesaid delay. However, the Court takes note the other submissions also and without interfering with order under review, it is observed that it is upto the State to initiate inquiry against petitioner if there is an element of fraud in her appointment. 6. The review petition is accordingly disposed of. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 AK Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad