Short Note : 1. This is a petition for review of the order, dated 25-11-1975, passed by us in Miscellaneous petition No. 175 of 1971. Held: While allowing the petition, the direction given in that order. dated 25-11-1975, was that Respondents 1 to 3 are hereby directed to give effect to the order. dated 1-4-1970 (Annexure-J), passed by the State Government and give the petitioner necessary benefits to which he may be entitled under the rules and determine his seniority within six months from today. The petitioner be considered for promotion to the higher post at the first next available occasion. 2. in the review petition it has been admitted that by the order dated 1-4-1970, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Engineer with retrospective effect from 30-11-1955. The State Government has now mentioned that the said order, dated 1-4-1970. was cancelled by the Government by an order. dated 24-11-1975. although even therein there has been a typing error which was subsequently corrected by an order. dated 29-12-1975. In our order. dated 25-11-1975, in para 3. we have fully reproduced the circumstances and the reasons which had. from time to time. persuaded the Bench to grant time to the State Government. As against that, in their return in the petition the State had admitted that the seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis others is yet to be determined by the Central Government in the gradation list published under States Reorganisation Act, on the basis of order passed by the State Government appointing him as Assistant Engineer with effect from 30-11-1955". The contention now is that the non-applicant had made a representation, dated 27-12-1961 (Annexure-A-1) which was rejected by the Central Government vide Annexure-A-2 which was communicated to the non-applicant vide Annexure-A-3. In their return in the petition all that the State had said was that the order, dated 1-4-1970, of the State Government (Annexure-J) "lacked certain formalities and legalities" and so "departmental scrutiny is still under reconsideration and be fore it is reconsidered, it will not be in the fitness-of things to consider petitioner's. seniority or other relative benefits on the basis of the said order", Learned Government Advocate frankly conceded that the documents, Annexures-A-2 and A-3, which have now been submitted were not placed on record in that petition. In the application for review no reason whatsoever has been given as to why these documents could not be produced in the petition. Not only that, the stand of the State was slightly different in the petition than what it is now being set up. 3. Without these documents having been put forth in the petition and the necessary objection based on them being taken in that behalf, there was no reason as to why the Court could not pass an order to give effect to the order, dated 1-4-1970. That being so. the plea that there is an apparent error on the face of the record has no basis. Petition rejected.