Honble KEJRIWAL, J. – Shri R.S Agrawal has filed the present application for modifying the order dt.8.8.95, passed in the aforesaid Contempt Application. Notices of the application submitted by Mr. Agarwal were issued to the petitioner and the non-petitioners. The petitioner submitted written reply to the said application. (2). Submission of Mr. Rastogi, counsel for the applicant is that the name of applicant was considered for promotion to I.A.S. by the Selection Board, which met on 23rd January 1995, and his name is at Serial No. 10 of the Selection List.Vide order dt.8.8.1995,this Court directed that the Select List prepared in January 1995,be operative after reviewing the proceedings of Selection Board for promotion to I.A.S. from State Service held in October 1993. His submission is that in case the Select List prepared in January 1995, is not operated,it would lapse or in case the applicant is promoted in the year 1996, he will become junior to the direct appointees. But in case the order dt. 8.8.1995, is modified and the following lines only thereafter operate the Select List prepared in Jan., 1995, are deleted. Shri Kesri Singh and other persons whose names are going to be reviewed, will not suffer any irreparable loss. Iin case they are selected by review D.P.C. they will get the same seniority for which they were entitled. His further submission is that the order dated 8.8.1995 was passed behind the back of the applicant without any notice to him and as such the applicant has right to move application for modification of the aforesaid order. In support of his arguments, Mr. Rastogi placed reliance on M.V.Elizabeth and others vs. Harwan Investment and Training Pvt. Ltd. (1), Awadh Bihar and others vs. State of Bihar and others. (2), Shivdeo Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others (3) and Ram Janam Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr. (4). (3). On the other hand Shri Dhankar counsel for the petitioner submits that Shri R.S.Agrawal has no right to file review application. The review application has been submitted under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 114 and order 47 rule 1 C.P.C. No order can be reviewed under the aforesaid provisions as there is no error either of fact or law on the face of record. The review application has been submitted under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 114 and order 47 rule 1 C.P.C. No order can be reviewed under the aforesaid provisions as there is no error either of fact or law on the face of record. This Court directed the non petitioners to convey the decision of this court dated 8.8.1995 to the Secretary, D.O.P. Govt. of India. New Delhi, immediately. The secretary was also to take steps immediately but the Govt. delayed in communicating the judgement of this court and the Secretary. D.O.P. Govt. of India. New Delhi, did not take steps till now and on that ground Shri Kesri Singh is likely to be superseded by the persons who have been selected for I.A.S. in January,1995. Shri Kesri Singh has already been superseded by ten junior officers and in case the order is modified, he is likely to be superseded by 19 persons more. His submission is that the intention of this court while passing the order dated 8.8.1995, was that the proceedings of Selection Board for I.A.S. which took place in October, 1993, should be reviewed first and lateron the list prepared in January 1995, should be operated. On account of negligence and inaction on the part of the State Government, Shri Kesri Singh should not be made to suffer more. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on Ram Chandra Shankar vs. The State of Maharashtra and others (5) Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma and others (6), Col. Avtar Singh Sekhon vs. Union of India and others (7), Smt. Meera Bhanja vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary (8), U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and another vs. Ravi Kumar Anand and others ( AIR 1995 S.C. 2076 ). (4). He further submits that against the order dated 8.8.1995, Shri Anand Kumar Hemkar filed D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 50/1995, and Shri Mahaveer Singh filed D.B.Civil Special Appeal No. 51/1995, and they were dismissed by this court on 7.9.1995. The State Government also filed D.B.Civil Special Appeal No. 53/1995, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 8.9.1995. Now the State Government has filed Special Leave Petition, before the Apex Court, challenging the order dated 8.8.1995, passed by this Court. Under such circumstances, when the order has already been confirmed by the Division Bench, it should not be reviewed. (5). The State Government also filed D.B.Civil Special Appeal No. 53/1995, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 8.9.1995. Now the State Government has filed Special Leave Petition, before the Apex Court, challenging the order dated 8.8.1995, passed by this Court. Under such circumstances, when the order has already been confirmed by the Division Bench, it should not be reviewed. (5). In rejoinder, counsel for the applicant submits that appeals were dismissed not on merits but on the gound that they were not maintainable. (6). Mr. A.K. Bhandari, Additional Advocate General admits that the State Government has filed S.L.P before the Apex Court but his submission is that the only prayer in the S.L.P. is for modification of the order dated 8.8.1995, and not for setting aside the whole order. In case the Review application is accepted, the Government will withdraw the S.L.P. pending before the Apex Court. He further submits that the Government tried its best that the meeting of review D.P.C. should be held prior to 9th Jan.,1996, but the U.P.S.C. expressed its inability. (7). I heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record and also the rulings cited by them. (8). It is not in dispute that the ordere dt.8.8.1995, was passed without any notice to the applicant Shri R.S.Agarwal or to any other person who was selected in I.A.S. by the Selection Board , which met in January, 1995. Under such circumstances, the order of this Court that the Select List prepared in January, 1995, shall be operative only after reviewing the proceedings of Selection Board for promotion to I.A.S. held in October , 1993, in relation to Shri Kesri Singh and Shri K.P. Singhal, will affect the rights of the applicant Shri R.S. Agrawal and other selected officers . It is settled law that if the rights of any person are affected by any order which was passed behind his back, he has a right to apply to the Court which passed the order to modify the same suitably. (9). The point is squarely covered by the judgement of Apex Court in Shiv deo Singhs case(Supra) in which the facts were that on a Writ Petition filed by "A" for cancellation of the order of allotment passed by the Director of Rehabilitation in favour of "B" was set–aside by the High Court. (9). The point is squarely covered by the judgement of Apex Court in Shiv deo Singhs case(Supra) in which the facts were that on a Writ Petition filed by "A" for cancellation of the order of allotment passed by the Director of Rehabilitation in favour of "B" was set–aside by the High Court. Subsequently, "B" filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for reviewing the said order. The High Court allowed the writ petition. Against that order, "A" , whose writ petition was initially allowed by the High Court, filed an appeal before the Apex Court . The Apex Court held as under :– "that the second writ petition by B was maintainable and the High Court had not acted without jurisdiction in reviewing its previous order at the instance of B who was not a party to the previous Writ proceedings. There is nothing in Article 32 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. In entertaining Bs petition, the High Court did what the principles of natural justice required it to do." (10). The Apex Court in Ram Janams case (Supra) held that a person who was not impleaded in writ petition can either file a review application or can file S.L.P. before the Apex Court, in case his rights were affected by the judgement of the High Court. (11). In Aribams case (Supra) , the Judicial-Commissioner reviewed its order on two grounds. The first was that his predecessor had overlooked two important documents Exhibits A /1 and A /3, which showed that the respondents were in possession of the sites even in the year 1948-49 and that the grants must have been made even by then. The second was that there was a patent illegality in permitting the appellant to question in a single writ petition, "settlement" made in favour of different respondents. The Apex Court allowed the appeal on the ground that an erroneous decision on merits can not be reviewed. This case is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Similarly the judgements reported in Meera Bhanjas case (supra) and U.P. Avas Evam Vikas(supra) are not applicable to the facts of the present case. (12). The Apex Court allowed the appeal on the ground that an erroneous decision on merits can not be reviewed. This case is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Similarly the judgements reported in Meera Bhanjas case (supra) and U.P. Avas Evam Vikas(supra) are not applicable to the facts of the present case. (12). The judgement reported in Ram Chandras case(supra) is also not relevant to the facts of the present case. In that case the Apex Court was of the view that the petitioners were not directly affected by the judgement . But in the present case the applicant is directly affected by the rider placed by this Court vide order dated 8.8.1995. Further more,in the contempt proceedings it was not necessary to put such a rider. (13). In Avtar Singhs case (Supra), the Apex Court held that review is not a routine matter. Material error manifest on the face of the earlier order resulting in miscarriage of justice must be proved. This case does not help the petitioner. (14). The argument that D.B.Special Appeals Nos. 50/1995 , and 51/1995, were dismissed by the Division Bench, has no relevancy in the present case as those appeals were not dismissed on merits but were dismissed on the ground that they were not maintainable. The S.L.P. which has been filed by the Govt. before the Apex Court is only on the ground that the rider put by this Court vide its order dated 8.8.1995, was not justified. (15). Looking to all these facts and circumstances of the case, I think it proper to recall the rider placed vide order dated 8.8.1995, so that none of the parties may suffer. (16). Consequently, I allow the application and delete the following lines from the order dated 8.8.1995:– "only thereafter operate the Select List prepared in January, 1995." The Selection Board for I.A.S. will review its proceedings for selection to I.A.S. from State Service held in October, 1993, without any further delay.