Judgment G.C. Bharuka, J. The present application has been filed by the petitioners seeking a review of the judgment and order passed on 6.7.1987 in C.W.J.C. No. 4559 of 1982. 2. There are three petitioners in the present case. They had filed the above referred writ application claiming therein that since they were acting as teachers on the date of take over of their school, their services got automatically transferred to the State Government as per provisions of Section 4(2) of the Bihar Non-Government Elementary Schools (Taking Over of Control) Act, 1976 (Act 30 of 1976) (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). The grievance of the petitioners was that the Respondent - State and its Officers had illegally denied the said legal right to the petitioners by terminating their services from the date of take over of the school in question and prayer was for a declaration that their services stood transferred to the Government and they are entitled to all the benefits and salary etc. as provided under Section 4 (2) of the Act. 3. A Bench of this Court after hearing the counsel of the petitioners, at length, on the facts as asserted in the writ application and, on close examination of the statutory provisions and relevant case laws, dismissed the writ application by holding that: (i) The petitioners were not duty appointed teachers because there is nothing on the record to show that they had been appointed by the Managing Committee of the School; (ii) The petitioners were neither trained teachers nor confirmed teachers, and (iii) The petitioners ale guilty of causing inordinate delay in filing the writ application disentitling themselves for any relief under the writ jurisdiction because their services were terminated on 15.10.1973 and the writ application was filed on 11.11.82 i.e. after a lapse of 9 years. 4. The basic facts which have been noticed by the Bench deciding the writ application have not been controverted even in the review application. In respect of the foundational facts, I better quote from Paragraph no. 5 of the judgment sought to be reviewed : "That the school in question was taken over on 15.10.1973. That the petitioners were admittemly untrained teachers (Matriculates). That the petitioners were unconfirmed teachers on the date of take over of the school. In respect of the foundational facts, I better quote from Paragraph no. 5 of the judgment sought to be reviewed : "That the school in question was taken over on 15.10.1973. That the petitioners were admittemly untrained teachers (Matriculates). That the petitioners were unconfirmed teachers on the date of take over of the school. That the appointment letters in favour of the petitioners issued by the Secretary were not in pursuance of any resolution of the Managing Committee and the learned counsel for the petitioners fairly conceded that there was no averment to this effect in the writ case nor to the effect that the appointments of the petitioners were confirmed by the Managing Committee before the taking over of the school. There is no whisper in the writ case that, on the date of take over of the school, the petitioners were shown in the approved list of teachers." 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute the correctness of the facts as noted by this Court in the Judgment in question. But the main thrust of his submission is that the Bench deciding the writ application has erred in holding that an untrained and unconfirmed teacher cannot be treated to be a teacher entitling him to the benefit of transfer of his services to the State Government and consequential benefit of salary etc. Further according to his submissions catena of cases raking such views. He contrary to the statutory provisions as well as the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ram Ballabh Pd. Singh and others v. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 1986 P.L.J.R., 373. It has been further submitted that the Division Bench decision in L.P.A. No. 64 of 1983 decided on 11.1.1985 has been wrongly distinguished. It has been also submitted that some of the cases reported as well as unreported have either not been noticed or have not been property dealt with to thrash out the issue at hand. It has been further submitted that the Division Bench decision in L.P.A. No. 64 of 1983 decided on 11.1.1985 has been wrongly distinguished. It has been also submitted that some of the cases reported as well as unreported have either not been noticed or have not been property dealt with to thrash out the issue at hand. Lastly it was submitted that the view taken in the impugned judgment with regard to the non-applicability of the provisions of Section 4 (2) of the Act in respect of the untrained teachers has also been taken by a Bench of this Court in the case of Tarkeshwar Singh and others v. The State of Bihar and others ( 1987 PLJR 1017 ) but the same has been held to be per incuriam and not binding by an Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in the case of Smt. Pratibha Singh and another v. The State of Bihar and others reported in 1988 P.L.J.R., 646. 6. In my opinion for deciding the present review application it is neither necessary to enter into any complicated legal issue nor any such effort involving lengthy argument is permissible while dealing with a review petition. 7. As noticed above, the petitioners could not controvert the facts noted by this Court deciding the writ application that the petitioners had not been appointed as teachers by the Managing Committee of the school i.e. they could not establish the fact that they had been acting as duly appointed teachers in the school in question on the date of its take over and, therefore, as has been rightly held by the Bench deciding the writ application, they were not entitled to the benefits of Section 4(2) of the Act. Even if any other interpretation is permissible the same cannot be agitated in a remedy by way of review, which is of very limited scope and it can be availed only in respect of errors apparent on the face of the record. 8. Even if any other interpretation is permissible the same cannot be agitated in a remedy by way of review, which is of very limited scope and it can be availed only in respect of errors apparent on the face of the record. 8. It is also important that apart from all other considerations either of fact or of law, this Court has refused to exercise its writ jurisdiction on the ground of laches committed by the petitioners and has held that there being no reasonable explanation for filing the writ application after a lapse of nine years from the date of their alleged termination of services, they are not entitled to any relief under the writ jurisdiction as the claim had become stale. 9. Under the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any valid ground for entertaining the review application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Since nobody has appeared on behalf of the Opposite parties, there will be no order as to cost.