S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. ( 1 ) IN these proceedings, review of a part of the judgment dated 31st August, 2000, disposing off W. P. (C) 2782/1998, has been sought for by the writ petitioner. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was appointed to the U. P. Civil Services on 7. 11. 1950 on the basis of a competitive examination. He was subsequently confirmed, after two years and in 1964, deputed to various positions in the Central Government. It is also a matter of record that he served as Assistant Commissioner and later as deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi as well as Joint Director of education. He was later posted as Officer on Special Duty, Tea Board in 1966. on 15th November, 1969, the petitioner was appointed as Secretary, Central Ware housing Corporation. Sometime in 1971, he was given proforma promotion to the special grade, U. P. Civil Services. On 14. 8. 1972, he was appointed as Managing director, Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation (DSIDC); it is averred that this was in a scale equivalent to Selection grade in the Indian administrative Services, (IAS ). ( 3 ) ON 23rd October, 1972, the petitioner was appointed as Managing director of DSIDC. On 14th August, 1973, his resignation, w. e. f. the same date, from the Government, for permanent absorption was forwarded and later he was appointed Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the DSIDC. It is claimed that when the petitioner s issue of permanent absorption was still pending decision, he was forced by the Ministry of Home Affairs, to proceed on long leave on 7th april, 1977. ( 4 ) THE petitioner apparently represented on 4th August, 1977, against his enforced leave and sought to re-join the duties. He claims that in 1977 a Select list of U. P. Civil Services Officers was prepared for promotion to the IAS; his name was included but the names of his immediate senior and another official junior to him were not included. It is alleged that the U. P. S. C. pressurized the the State of U. P. to withhold action on the Select list and to hold another DPC to accommodate the petitioner s junior Sh. Chitangad Singh. ( 5 ) THE petitioner s name did not eventually find mention in the select list. On 12th October, 1979 he submitted an application for voluntary retirement which was accepted, w. e. f. 17th December, 1980. Chitangad Singh. ( 5 ) THE petitioner s name did not eventually find mention in the select list. On 12th October, 1979 he submitted an application for voluntary retirement which was accepted, w. e. f. 17th December, 1980. ( 6 ) THE petitioner filed the writ petition which is the subject matter of these proceedings on 27th May, 1998. The reliefs claimed in the petition were as follows:"a) to release and pay regular pension to the Petitioner as admissible under the normal rules with interest @ 24% w. e. f. The due date. b) to release and pay the Petitioner Death-cum-Retirement gratuity with interest @ 24% w. e. f due date, to release and pay provisional/interim pension as due to the Petitioner after one month of the date of voluntary retirement forthwith along with arrears of the provisional/interim pension, c) to quash the notice no:5110/do- (2)-881-952 dated 2. 4. 1985 for forfeiture of 3/4th amounts of pension of the Petitioner being arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and un-constitutional. d) To pay full amount of arrears of Salary, Special Pay, HRS, CCA and other allowances admissible on a Cadre Post in the Senior Scale of IAS as per certificate of the Respondents, between 27. 6. 78 to 12. 1. 80 e) To pay full amount of pay and allowances admissible to the Petitioner on the post of Chairman-cum-MD DSIDC between 11. 4. 77 his being sent on forced leave till 26. 6. 78 when Respondent UP Govt. recalled and appointed him in their New delhi Office on ex-Cadre post of O. S. D. f) to release full amount of admitted missing credits in the GPF Account No:gau- 8762 by Respondent AG, UP, g) to pay to the Petitioner exemplary compensation for his continuous harassment physical and mental torture caused to him and for the financial loss including deprival of free Medical attendance facility. " ( 7 ) THE writ petition was partly allowed by the judgment of nandi, J. in the following terms:"16. In the result, respondent No. 5 is directed to settle/pay full retiral benefits/claims including pension without reduction to the petitioner after adjusting the amount, if any, paid to the petitioner within three months from today with 9% interest from 1. 1. 1984, failing which, the petitioner would be entitled to 12% interest from 1. 1. 1984 on the entire amount payable to the petitioner. ""17. 1. 1984, failing which, the petitioner would be entitled to 12% interest from 1. 1. 1984 on the entire amount payable to the petitioner. ""17. The compensation payable to the petitioner is quantified at rs. 25,000/- for the harassment, inconvenience and annoyance caused to the petitioner. " ( 8 ) THE review petition was preferred principally on the ground that the prayer or relief sought in clause (d) had not been considered and decided. The review petition was pending, for the last six years, and could not be heard, despite numerous dates of hearing. ( 9 ) MR. G. P. Srivastava, the petitioner himself argued in these proceedings. It was contended that the judgment under review had noticed, in para (10) that the third respondent did file any return to say that the inclusion of the petitioner s name in the 1977 select list was provisional or subject to outcome of enquiry pending against him. The petitioner also contended that the 5th respondent no-where stated about inclusion of his name at serial No. 39 in the select list and his non-recommendation for appointment to the IAS. In spite of noting these and also taking into consideration that the respondents had not disclosed as and to when the enquiry was initiated and what was its outcome, the Court nevertheless did not issue any directions on prayer (d ). It was also contended that para 13 of the judgment had to be reviewed as a matter of law because it pertains to the petitioner s entitlement for being included in the ias and a subsequent working out of his pensionary benefits on that basis. ( 10 ) THE petitioner sought to rely on the certificate issued by the government of U. P on 10th March, 1978 to the Central Government about his having worked in a cadre post in support of the contention that as per the IAS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules read with the IAS (Promotion) Regulations, he was entitled to be promoted when his junior, Shri Chitangad Singh had been selected and later appointed to the IAS. It was contended that in terms of Rule 3 (3) of the Seniority rules that certificate was binding and had to be acted upon. Learned counsel also submitted that withholding of promotion was on the basis of a mala fide and baseless assertion that a CBI enquiry was pending. It was contended that in terms of Rule 3 (3) of the Seniority rules that certificate was binding and had to be acted upon. Learned counsel also submitted that withholding of promotion was on the basis of a mala fide and baseless assertion that a CBI enquiry was pending. He contended that no enquiry was pending in respect of the order and he was merely a witness in the enquiry. It was, therefore, contended that withholding of appointment at the relevant time in 1977 in effect amounted to a punishment which could not have been awarded. ( 11 ) THE petitioner relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in R. P. Khanna vs. S. A. S. Abbas, 1972 (1) SCC 784 to say that officiation in a senior post is an indispensable ingredient for the application of IAS seniority rules and that a retrospective declaration in the scheme of things is practical and desirable. He also relied upon the judgment in Union of India vs. G. N. Tiwari, 1986 (1) SCC 89 to say that continuous officiation in a cadre post entails a legal fiction contained in Rule 3 (3) of the Seniority Rules to reckon such entire period from the date of officiating appointment till date of appointment into the service to be reckoned for purposes of determining the year of allotment in the Seniority Rules. ( 12 ) IT was also contended that the petitioner had filed the promotion regulations as existing in 1977, and relied upon the same in the proceedings. Petitioner argued that in the case of officers facing enquiries, till the competent authority arrives at a conclusion establishing prima facie guilt he would be treated at par in the matter of promotion/confirmation etc. He also relies upon the date of the notification of the appointment or declaration of select list, namely, 6th April, 1978 to say that no enquiry was pending against him and that the enquiry was instituted subsequently. It was contended that the CBI enquiry was kept alive for 20 years with a sole view to victimize him; eventually this Court dismissed the appeal of the Central government and imposed costs for dragging the petitioner into litigation for unduly long period. It was contended that the CBI enquiry was kept alive for 20 years with a sole view to victimize him; eventually this Court dismissed the appeal of the Central government and imposed costs for dragging the petitioner into litigation for unduly long period. ( 13 ) IT was submitted by the petitioner that he was on leave when the select list was approved till his recall by the 5th respondent to the service on 26th June, 1978 and subsequently there was no occasion for the respondents to ignore his claim on ground of deterioration in his service in terms of Regulation 9 (2 ). It was, therefore, contended that in view of these considerations, this Court ought to review its directions and grant the relief claimed in prayer (d ). ( 14 ) IT is averred and contended on behalf of the Central government, that this Court in its judgment dated 31. 8. 2000 in the petitioner s writ Petition had discussed the appointment of the petitioner to the Indian administrative Service in para 13. The relief was expressly denied, after conscious and due deliberation. It was also contended that in para 16, the relief admissible, was directed to be granted. ( 15 ) IT is further submitted that induction/appointment, on promotion of the State Civil Service officers are made by the Central Government the basis of recommendations of the concerned State Governments and fulfillment of other conditions laid down in the relevant rules, framed under the All India services Act, 1951. The presence of the name of any State Civil Service Officer in Selected List is of no consequence unless and until he is recommended for promotion by the State Government and appointed to Indian Administrative Service through notification issued by the Government of India. ( 16 ) IT is submitted that the petitioner was never been appointed to the IAS; he remained a member of the Uttar Pradesh State Civil Service till the date of his voluntary retirement from the Government service. This fact is undisputed, the petitioner referred, in in para 17 of his Writ Petition about notice of voluntary retirement from the State Government of Uttar Pradesh under fr 56. Counsel contends that for voluntary retirement of IAS officers the provisions of Rule 16 of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) rules, 1958 are applicable. This fact is undisputed, the petitioner referred, in in para 17 of his Writ Petition about notice of voluntary retirement from the State Government of Uttar Pradesh under fr 56. Counsel contends that for voluntary retirement of IAS officers the provisions of Rule 16 of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) rules, 1958 are applicable. It is also submitted that the petitioner had never been recommended by the State Government about promotion to the IAS, and he was not appointed to the IAS. Therefore, the prayer to issue necessary ex-post- facto orders/notification about his deemed appointment to the IAS w. e. f. 6. 4. 1978, with provisional seniority of 1973 and with consequential benefits does not arise. Since the Petitioner had never been a member of the Indian administrative Service his claim for medical facility after retirement under the all India Services rules are untenable. Therefore, the Central Government has no liability to grant any benefit to the applicant who had never been a member of the All India Services. ( 17 ) THE State of UP, in its counter affidavit to the review petition, avers due compliance with the directions of the court, and release of arrears of pension, as well as other amounts, to the tune of over Rs. 17 lakhs; it also avers that there was due compliance with regard to payment of costs. ( 18 ) THE judgment of which the petitioner seeks review, by para 13, states as follows:"as far as the petitioner s entitlement on the basis of IAS Cadre is concerned, i am not inclined to accept the the contention raised by the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner had not been put on IAS Cadre and the petitioner was not recommended for appointment to IAS by the Government of Uttar Pradesh and the petitioner was confirmed to be in the employment of the State Civil Service of Government of Uttar Pradesh till his retirement from service. The petitioner in my view should have challenged the action of the non-recommendation/non- inclusion of his name in IAS Cadre and for appointment to IAS Cadre, by respondent No. 5 and the consequent non-appointment to the IAS Cadre by respondents No. 1,2 and 3 at the relevant time when his name was excluded in the select list of 1978 and thereafter. This would go to show that the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief on the basis of IAS Cadre and, therefore, the liability would be that of Respondent No. 5 only. " ( 19 ) THE petitioner s grievance is that even after recording that the respondents did not file any return, or indicate why his name had not been included in the Select List of IAS, the court refused to grant the relief. Undoubtedly in paragraph 10 of the judgment, the silence of the respondents on this aspect has been noticed; however, the reason which impelled this court to decline the relief was that the petitioner did not approach the court, at the relevant time, and assail non inclusion of his name in the Select List. The court was of the opinion that the petitioner ought to have asserted his rights at the relevant time, in 1978 or soon thereafter. This reasoning, in my opinion, cannot be called an error apparent on the face of the record, or otherwise justify a departure from the view taken, to deny the relief. It is not as if the court did not consider the issue; as the extracted portion of the judgment reveals, the matter was discussed, and the relief specifically denied. The reasoning may not appeal to the petitioner, or even the court itself, subsequently; however that alone does not exercise or justify invocation of review jurisdiction. The court, in review, does not appreciate the correctness of the reasoning, but consider the judgment to see whether there is a manifest error, in that a material fact, brought to the notice, was not considered, or that some other fact which could not be brought to its notice, but surfaced later, had a material bearing on the outcome of the case. Such circumstances do not exist here. ( 20 ) THE petitioner admittedly sought, and was granted voluntary retirement, in 1983. He approached this court in 1998, claiming multiple reliefs; even relief (d) was for payment of salary and allowances on the footing that he had been selected to the IAS. However, he did not claim and establish entitlement as an IAS Official from the relevant date. The matter was urged, and considered in the final judgment. He approached this court in 1998, claiming multiple reliefs; even relief (d) was for payment of salary and allowances on the footing that he had been selected to the IAS. However, he did not claim and establish entitlement as an IAS Official from the relevant date. The matter was urged, and considered in the final judgment. I see no error apparent on the face of the record, in the conclusion that since he had not asserted his right to be included in the Select List, in 1980, the relief should not be granted, in a petition filed almost two decades later. One additional factor, in my opinion, which is relevant is that the petitioner sought, and was granted voluntary retirement by the State of UP. He accepted that position, unconditionally and therefore, could not assert, (without ever having approached the court earlier about his non-inclusion in the IAS at the relevant time) that he was wrongly left out from the promotion list. ( 21 ) I am also of the opinion that the decisions cited by the petitioner are of no assistance to him; the question of applicability of IAS seniority Rules would arise, only after an official is appointed either by promotion or through direct recruitment; it cannot apply where the official has not even entered the service. In any event, the judgment sought to be reviewed does not disclose that this question was raised, and urged on behalf of the petitioner. ( 22 ) IN view of the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that no grounds have been made out to review the judgment dated 31st August, 2000; this review petition is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs. .