B. J. SHETHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE applicant-original petitioner had earlier filed writ petition i. e. Special Civil Application No. 7229/02 before this court praying that a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction be issued to the respondents calling upon them to produce merit list of Open Category as well as Merit List of students belonging to Scheduled Caste category and to count eligible candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste in the merit list of Open Category. ( 2 ) THE applicant-original petitioner himself belonging to Scheduled Caste (Hindu Vankar ). He passed his Higher Secondary Certificate (HSC) Examination held by Gujarat Education Board in General Stream in the month of April, 2001 with 76. 17%. In spite of it, he was not given admission, therefore, he approached this court by way of aforesaid writ petition on the grounds mentioned in it. ( 3 ) INITIALLY, when the aforesaid writ petition came up before this court on 6. 8. 2002, notice was ordered to be issued to the respondents making it returnable on 9. 8. 2002 and by way of ad-interim relief the admissions were made subject to the result of the petition. On 9th at the request of learned AGP, Mr. P. R. Abichandani, it was kept on 14. 8. 2002 to file reply. Accordingly, affidavit was filed by Shri M. A. Patel, Deputy Director of Primary Education, Gujarat State, who is personally present before this court today in response to the notice issued by this court on this application. ( 4 ) SHRI M. A. Patel, Dy. Director of Primary Education has filed his detailed reply in main writ petition i. e. Special Civil Applicationno. 7229/02 wherein para 10 of which he stated that ". . . . . . . . second bench of interviews going to be held on 13th and 14th August, 2002 and no candidate who is less meritorious than the other petitioner would be given admission in the SC and / or open category". ( 5 ) IN view of the detailed reply and categorical statement made in para 10 of reply of Mr. Patel, the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed and notice was discharged and the ad-interim relief granted earlier also was vacated. ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, after the aforesaid writ petition No. 7229/02 was dismissed by this court on 14. Patel, the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed and notice was discharged and the ad-interim relief granted earlier also was vacated. ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, after the aforesaid writ petition No. 7229/02 was dismissed by this court on 14. 8. 2002 on the basis of the affidavit of Mr. Patel, Deputy Director of Primary Education, Gujarat State, the petitioner came to know that respondents had not given admission to several candidates in the open category and given admission in reserved category though they were eligible for admission in open category. Solanki Mayaben Bhikabhai was one of those candidates, who has been given admission against reserved category, who secured 79% marks in General Category. ( 7 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, after issuance of the first notification dated 13. 6. 2002, 3897 seats were notified but the respondents increased seats to the extent of only 1800 seats and arbitrarily not increased reserved seats on pro rata basis. ( 8 ) THE aforesaid facts came to the notice of the petitioner subsequently after the petitioners writ petition was dismissed by this court on 14. 8. 2002, therefore, the applicant-original petitioner has approached this court by way of this Misc. Civil Application under Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code for reviewing order dated 14. 8. 2002 passed by this court in Special Civil Application No. 7229/02. ( 9 ) I would like to reproduce provisions of review under Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as under :-114. Review :- Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Clauses, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit" ( 10 ) IT is well settled law that provisions of Civil Procedure Code would not apply to the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid provisions of review under Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure applies only in a case of decree or order or decision and reference from a court of small causes. Thus, only on this ground this application was required to be dismissed. ( 11 ) IT is true that this court has inherent jurisdiction to review its own order, provided any error apparent on the face of the record is pointed out. At the cost of repetition, I must state that the aforesaid main petition i. e. Special Civil Application No. 7229/02 was dismissed after issuing notice to the other side on the strength of the averments made on oath by responsible officer like Shri Patel, Deputy Director, Primary Education, State of Gujarat. However, when it was asserted on oath by the present applicant in paras 5 and 6 of this application that the respondents have not given admission to several candidates in the open general category and given admission in reserved category though they were eligible for admission in open general category and the case of Solanki Mayaben Bhikabhai, who secured 79% was pointed out, therefore, initially this court had entertained this application for review and issued rule making it returnable on 27. 9. 2002. Thereafter it was kept today for the purpose of filing reply. ( 12 ) TODAY, reply affidavit is filed and Shri Patel, Deputy Director, Primary Education Gujarat State has also remained present. From the reply affidavit to this application it is made clear that quota of 7% for reserved category of Scheduled Caste is maintained by them. They have also explained the case of Solanki Mayaben, which has been referred to by the present applicant in para 6 of this application. Coincidently, it may be stated that Solanki Mayaben also belonging to Scheduled Category and her case falls under female category. In addition to that she is from local area. She opted for particular place and she being the female candidate was accommodated at the particular place i. e. Chitrasan, as per the reserved policy framed by the Government. Coincidently, it may be stated that Solanki Mayaben also belonging to Scheduled Category and her case falls under female category. In addition to that she is from local area. She opted for particular place and she being the female candidate was accommodated at the particular place i. e. Chitrasan, as per the reserved policy framed by the Government. However, learned counsel Shri Malkan appearing for the applicant-original petitioner relying upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in case of Indra Sawhney V. Union of India reported in AIR 1993 SC SC 477 vehemently submitted that once Solanki Mayaben Bhikabhai got selected in the open competition on the basis of her own merit, then her case cannot be considered against the quota reserved for Scheduled Caste and she will have to be treated as open competition candidate. In support of this submission, Mr. Malkan has tried to rely upon the observations made by the Honble Court in case of Indra Sawhneys case (supra) in para 94a, more particularly last six lines of that para, wherein the Honble Supreme Court observed that :-"para 94a : -. . . . . . . . . . . It may well happen that some members belonging to say, Scheduled Castes get selected in the open competition field on the basis of their own merit; they will not be counted against the quota reserved for Scheduled Caste; they will be treated as open competition candidates" ( 13 ) THERE cannot be any quarrel with the principal laid down by the Constitutional Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in case of Indra Sawhneys case (supra), but as stated earlier, in this case, solitary instance of Solanki Mayaben Bhikabhai given by the present applicant would not be of any help to the present applicant-petitioner. It may be stated that said Solanki Mayaben Bhikabhai got 79% marks, whereas, the present applicant secured only 76% marks. It is also stated by Shri Patel, Deputy Director of Primary Education, Gujarat State, who is present before this court that no other candidate with less merit than the applicant has been given admission. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that no case is made out for reviewing or recalling my earlier order dated 14. 8. 2002 dismissing the Special Civil Application No. 7229/02. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that no case is made out for reviewing or recalling my earlier order dated 14. 8. 2002 dismissing the Special Civil Application No. 7229/02. In view of the above discussion, this review application fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule discharged. .