JUDGMENT 1. - This is a petition seeking review of dismissal of the writ petition by re-calling the judgement dated 9th July, 1992 and for fresh hearing, on the ground that since the Registry failed to attach rejoinder filed by the petitioner on 15.5.1992 with the file of the writ petition, the contents made in pares 4 & 5 of the rejoinder could not Have been brought to the notice of the court there by the court could not have considered significant aspect as it the past practice of the respondent-Board giving benefit of service rendered by a person before acquiring the requisite academic qualification during service tnaura for the purpose of judging his eligibility and on account of that the decision of the Supreme Court in N. Suresth Nathan v. Union of India ( AIR 1992 SC 564 ) has wrongly been applied. In support of his contention as to the review. Mr. Mridul cited the decisions stated herein below. (1) AIR 1965 SC 1576; (2) AIR 1969 SC 1335 ; (3) AIR 1966 SC 1631 ; (4) AIR 1981 SC 422 & 1113;(5) AIR 1986 SC 368 ; (6) AIR 1979 SC 1165 ; (7) AIR 1977 SC P.5 (8) AIR 1992 SC 564 ;(9) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 837 of 1983 G.C. Mathur v. State decided on 29.11.1988. 2. As against this, Shri R.M. Lodha appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 8, vociforce urged that even if it is assumed that the registry failed to attach the rejoinder of the petitioner with the file of his writ petition, and the Court could not take into consideration the contents made therein, then also it cannot be a case of review by the Court inasmuch as the petitioner's counsel himself had not relied upon nor nay arguments was ever made before this Court while the arguments were made on 18.5.1992 nor in the written arguments pointing out or drawing attention to the alleged contents made in Para 4 & 5 of the rejoinder. Mr. R.M. lodha added that no issue was raised relying upon these contents as to the past practice while the hearing of the case was being made. Shri R.M. Lodha cited in his support the following declaration of the supreme Court. (1) A.T. Sharma v. A.P. Sharma AIR 1977 SC P. 1047 (2) Northern India Caterers v. Lt. Mr. R.M. lodha added that no issue was raised relying upon these contents as to the past practice while the hearing of the case was being made. Shri R.M. Lodha cited in his support the following declaration of the supreme Court. (1) A.T. Sharma v. A.P. Sharma AIR 1977 SC P. 1047 (2) Northern India Caterers v. Lt. Governor, Delhi (AIR 1980 SC P.674) . 3. Having considered the rival contention of the parties and the decisions referred to by them, I find that the decisions referred to by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are of the nature dealing with the issues and questions not of review but others. When a quarry was made by the Court, whether any point was raised relying upon the contents made in Paras 4 & 5 of the rejoinder as to the past practice of the respondent Board giving benefit of service rendered by a person before acquiring the requisites academic qualification during service tenure for the purpose of judging his eligibility, and relying upon Annexure 10, either during the course of hearing the arguments or even thereafter in written arguments, Shri M.M. Mridul could not answer in any form. Rather Shri R.M. Lodha stressly urged that no point, as aforesaid was ever raised at any time. 4. I lend support from the decisions referred to by Shri R.M. Lodha which bear sound principles of law on the question of review and hold that the petitioner is not entitled to seek a review of the judgement dismissing his writ petition for the purpose of re-hearing and afresh decision of the case, and he is further not entitled to seek review on the ground that the contents of Paras 4 81 5 of the rejoinder filed by him. alongwith Annexure 10 which were part of the record were not even relied upon nor any question was raised pointing out them during the course of hearing the arguments, by the petitioner. 5. alongwith Annexure 10 which were part of the record were not even relied upon nor any question was raised pointing out them during the course of hearing the arguments, by the petitioner. 5. In N. Suresh Nathan v. Union of India ( AIR 1992 SC 564 ) , the past practice followed in the Department was that in the case of Diplomas holder Junior Engineers who obtained the Degree during service, the period of three years' service in the grade for eligibility for promotion as Degree holders had commenced from the date of obtaining the Degree and the earlier period of service as Diploma holders was not counted for this purpose. This practice was held to be quite tenable and the Rules which are similar to the case at hand providing three years experience in the category of degree-holder, were construed to mean that three years' service in the grade of Degree holder for the purpose of promotion to the higher post was three years from the date of obtaining the Degree, in view of the scheme of the Rules. 6. Here the past practice pointed out was contrary to that was in the decision of the Supreme Court, hence no benefit can be given to the petitioner even otherwise. And, in my view even if the past practice of the respondent Board giving benefit of service rendered by a person before acquiring the requisite academic qualification during service in view of the entire scheme of present writ petition, was not in conformity with the Rules. 7. The grounds on which the review is sought by the petitioner do not commend to me to hold that there is some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and on these ground, it has been contended that the decision dismissal of the writ petition was erroneous on merits. But, in my considered view, that would be at best the province of a court of appeal. Therefor, it is not a case of review. 8. In the result, this review petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. The order for miantaining status quo shall stand vacated.Review dismissed. *******