JUDGMENT BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (Oral) There has been some delay in preferring the review application and, accordingly, an application for condonation of delay has been filed, to which an objection has also been filed. We have considered the averments made in the application for condonation of delay as well as those made in the objection thereto and being satisfied with the reasons furnished for the delay, allow the application. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties on merit of the review application. 3. The facts, to which there appears to be no dispute, are that the respondent approached this Court being aggrieved by an order, by which his services were terminated. Respondent succeeded in his approach. Accordingly, an appeal was preferred by the review applicants. The success of the respondent was accorded considering the respondent to be a temporary Government servant. The Appellate Court considered the provisions of the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975, the appointment letter of the respondent as well as the termination letter and opined that the respondent was not a temporary Government servant. The Appellate Court, accordingly, set aside the order that was appealed against. 4. The Appellate Court found, as a fact, which finding has not been disputed in the present application, that the respondent was a retrenched employee from the District Census Office. The Appellate Court also noticed the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Government of Tamilnadu and another versus G. Mohammad Ammenudeen and others, 1999 (7) SCC 499 . The Appellate Court thereafter directed the review applicants to give priority to the respondent for appointment on a vacant post in accordance with the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court (supra). This direction in the background of what has been stated above cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record. In the event, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Government of Tamilnadu and another versus G. Mohammad Ammenudeen and others has given any direction to give priority to retrenched employees of District Census Office, then that direction being a conscious direction no review against the same is maintainable. In the review application, it has not been contended that in the said judgment no direction of the nature, as has been mentioned in the order under review, was given by the Hon’ble Apex Court. We, accordingly, refuse to interfere. In the review application, it has not been contended that in the said judgment no direction of the nature, as has been mentioned in the order under review, was given by the Hon’ble Apex Court. We, accordingly, refuse to interfere. The review application fails and the same is dismissed.