JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The misc. application accompanying the review petition aforementioned is under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in filing the same. A review and reconsideration of the judgment and order dated 10.1.2013 passed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 175/2009 is sought for. 3. According to the applicant, after obtaining the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order on 22.1.2013, he took steps for filing the Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, having been advised that a review petition ought to be made before this Court, he engaged himself in making the necessary arrangements for funds etc. He has stated that he had in order to meet the expenditure of the review proceedings, obtained loan from his near relations, which consumed about 3-4 months. His learned counsel at Jodhpur as well could not file the review petition immediately as he was busy in personal commitments. The review petition was eventually filed on 27.5.2013 and as a result, a delay of 101 days occurred. 4. Be that as it may, the applicant had filed the D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 175/2009 being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27.8.2008 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 01/2007 rejecting his prayer for salary and other allowances at par with the employees serving in the Non-Government Educational Institution. The pleaded facts reveal that he was initially appointed as Library Clerk on adhoc basis on 29.8.1998 for one academic session with the Bhopalwala Arya Senior Secondary School, Sri Ganganagar (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Institution") on a fixed pay of Rs. 2,000/- per month. Thereafter, the process for regular appointment was initiated on 11.6.1999 in which he participated but was declared unsuccessful. One Ram Sharma, who was working as LDC on permanent basis in the Institution, was selected for the post. He however, did not challenge the validity of the selection process and instead accepted the fresh appointment on contract basis offered by the Institution and rendered his services till the same were terminated on 8.7.2005. He thereafter, approached the learned Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal (for short, hereafter referred to as "the Tribunal") by filing appeal being No. 88/2005. He however, did not challenge the validity of the selection process and instead accepted the fresh appointment on contract basis offered by the Institution and rendered his services till the same were terminated on 8.7.2005. He thereafter, approached the learned Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal (for short, hereafter referred to as "the Tribunal") by filing appeal being No. 88/2005. The learned Tribunal returned a finding that the initial appointment of the applicant on 29.8.1998 as Library Clerk was not in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and therefore, his claim for parity of pay with his counterparts in the State service was not tenable. As his challenge to the determination was rejected by the learned Single Judge, the appeal was preferred. 5. By the judgment and order dated 10.1.2013, the appeal was dismissed by recording the following observations: (1) The applicant's initial appointment as Library Clerk with the Institution had not been on the basis of any selection as contemplated in law. (2) Though he participated in the selection process undertaken in the year 1998 for regular appointment to the post, he was not selected. (3) He did not question the validity of the process at any earlier point of time. (4) He instead accepted the contractual appointment for which he had been paid a fixed pay. (5) On a cumulative consideration and having regard to the law vis-a-vis regularisation of service and the rules of regular pay scale, he was not entitled to the reliefs sought for. 6. The learned counsel for the applicant apart from contending that sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay, has asserted that as he (applicant) was earlier not in possession of the necessary documents to lay a challenge to the selection process, the rejection of his appeal on the ground of such omission suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. In the alternative, he has argued that there was no occasion for him (appellant) to challenge the validity thereof, as from prior to the said selection process, the applicant was getting all benefits including pay scale as available to the regularly selected employees. In the alternative, he has argued that there was no occasion for him (appellant) to challenge the validity thereof, as from prior to the said selection process, the applicant was getting all benefits including pay scale as available to the regularly selected employees. It has been argued further that the persons appointed on similar terms as the appellant are receiving much higher pay and that as the Institution is not providing him with even minimum wages as contemplated in law, a review and reconsideration of the judgment and order dated 10.1.2013 is warranted. 7. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and on a consideration of the cause shown in the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, we are of the view that the same (cause) is not sufficient and convincing. Further, in the background of the determination made by the learned Tribunal and this Court, we are of the firm opinion that no ground for review has been made out. The judgment and order dated 10.1.2013 had been passed on a due consideration of all relevant aspects and the pleas now raised do not constitute error apparent on the face of the record or disclose any ground contemplated in law permitting review and reconsideration thereof. 8. The application under section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as the review petition are rejected.Petition dismissed. *******