A.K. Jayasankaran Nsmbist, J.
This review petition is filed, seeking a review of the judgment dated 08.07.2014, in O.P.(CAT).No.53 of 2014. The review petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the findings of this Court on issue No.5, by which it was held that, the overt act of the petitioners of choosing an alternate route of recruitment to the post that was notified, virtually rendered their actions inconsistent with their original stand in the matter, thereby depriving them of any benefit, that would stem from the exercise of a discretionary jurisdiction. In the review petition, the petitioner agitates the same issue, as was agitated in the original petition and in respect of which, we had rendered the findings on issue No.5. In that view of the matter, we are not persuaded to exercise the power of review in the instant case because we are of the view that, under the guise of arguing a review petition, the petitioner cannot be permitted to argue the original petition afresh. The dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in R. P.No.683 of 2014 in O.P.(CAT) No.53/2014 2 [2013(8) (SCC) 337] Union of India v. Sandur Manganese &
Iron Ores Ltd., and Others, fortifies the stand that we have taken.
Resultantly, the review petition fails and accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
K. Ramakrishnan, Judge Sd/-
A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, Judge // True Copy// P.A. to Judge ss