JUDGMENT 1. - Learned Counsel for the review petitioner Mr. Ajay Rastogi submits that at the time of decision of the writ petition. learned Counsel Mr. Hanuman Choudhary who was earlier representing the petitioner, wrongly referred the judgment of Raman Singh Koli v. State of Rajasthan delivered in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 6338/2002, dated 19.9.2002 , the said judgment is not applicable to the instant case. As the petitioner has filed the writ petition prior to the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that is in the year 2000. 2. In the petitions which are filed before the judgment of Hon'hle Supreme Court, the judgment of this Court rendered in case of Naval Kishore Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors . along with 22 similar writ petitions are applicable to the instant case by which this court directed that "on preparation of new merit lists, if it is found that the appointment orders have been issued to the candidates after 21.10.1999, who secured less marks to the candidates but have been placed above in the old merit list, as they have been awarded additional ten and five bonus marks on the basis of their being original residents of particular District or residents of rural area of that District for which advertisement was issued, passed after giving them seven days show cause notice. After preparation of new merit lists of candidates, all the available vacancies shall be filled in strictly in accordance with the new merit list prepared of the candidates. who have not been given appointment prior to 21st October, 1999. The respondents i.e. Secretary and Director, Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur shall complete this entire exercise within a period of one and a half month from today." 3. Learned Government Advocate Mr. Jinesh Jain submits that the petitioner earlier passed his Secondary Examination in the year 1985 and Higher Secondary Examination in the year 1987. After completing Graduation, the petitioner again appeared in Secondary Examination for improving his merit and passed the Secondary Examination in the year 1997 improving his merit.It is given out by learned Counsel for the review petitioner that the petitioner applied pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 1988, therefore, the marks obtained by the review petitioner in subsequent examination for improvement of marks should be considered. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in case of Surendra Kumar and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 4. This is a case where earlier Counsel for the petitioner, who referred the judgment of Raman Singh Koli and submitted that the present writ petitioner may be disposed of in view of the Raman Singh Koli's judgment. Considering the judgment and accepting the submission made on behalf of the Counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition was disposed of in the light of the aforesaid judgment. 5. Now the petitioner has changed the Counsel and filed the review petition. Although the review petition does not survive as no illegality or error has been committed by this Court while passing the order dated 4.10.2002 and for correcting the mistake committed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the review jurisdiction is not available and such review petition should not be entertained and encouraged. 6. Now at this stage, learned Counsel for the review petitioner submits that the writ petition was filed in the year 2000 itself and i.e. earlier to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 30th July, 2002 rendered in Kailash Chand v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2002(6) SCC 562 : [2002(6) SLR 230 (SC)] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed as follows : 1. The claims of the writ petitioners should be considered afresh in the light of this judgment vis-a-vis the candidates appointed on or after 18.1 1.1999 or those in the select list who are yet to be appointed. On such consideration, if those writ petitioners are found to have superior merit in case the bonus marks of 10% and for 5% are excluded, they should be offered appointments, if necessary, by displacing the candidates on or after i 8.11.1999. 2. The appointments made up to 17.11.1999 need not be reopened and reconsidered in the light of the law laid down in this judgment. 3. Writ Petition No. 542 of 2000 filed in this Court under Article 32 is hereby dismissed it was filed nearly one year after the judgment of the High Court and no explanation has been tendered for not approaching the High Court under Article 226 at an earlier point of time." 7. 3. Writ Petition No. 542 of 2000 filed in this Court under Article 32 is hereby dismissed it was filed nearly one year after the judgment of the High Court and no explanation has been tendered for not approaching the High Court under Article 226 at an earlier point of time." 7. In the aforesaid judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court also dismissed the writ petition No. 542/2000 as it was filed nearly one year after the Judgment of the High Court and no explanation has been tendered for not approaching the High Court under Article 226 at an earlier point of time. Admittedly, the present writ petition was filed on 16.2.2000 prior to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, the ratio decided in case of Naval Kishore Sharma and Ors. is applicable to the instant case. 8. Ignoring the mistake committed by Counsel for the petitioner and in the interest of justice, I deem it proper to exercise the power conferred under revie%%, jurisdiction to review the order dated 4th October, 2002. The review petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the new merit list already prepared by the respondents of the candidates who have not been given appointment prior to 21st October, 1999, under the direction issued by this Court in the Judgment dated 26th February, 2001 in case of Naval Kishore Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors . In case the name of the petitioner find place in the aforesaid merit list and found otherwise eligible, the Secretary and Director, Gramin Vikas & Panchayat Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of copy of this judgment. 9. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.Petition allowed. *******