Augustine George Masih, J. C.M. No. 11111 of 2011 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 48 days in filing the review application is condoned. Application stands allowed. Review Application No. 312 of 20112. Prayer in this application is for review of the order dated 30.5.2011 passed by this Court in the writ petition, whereby writ petition as preferred by Dilpreet Singh, petitioner, was allowed, holding him entitled to be appointed against the post of Assistant Engineer (Electronics & Communications) under the category of freedom fighters. The applicant was impleaded as respondent No. 2 and was served through the Punjab State Electricity Board (now Punjab State Power Corporation Limited). However, the applicant, who was selected and appointed as an Assistant Engineer (Electronics & Communications), and joined on 10.5.2010, was never intimated about the challenge to his appointment or he being a party to the writ petition. The review primarily is based upon this aspect. Prayer has also been made that since the applicant has been continuing with respondent No. 1 and his appointment is based upon no misstatement or any act on the part of said respondent, he should not be prejudiced in any manner. It was further asserted that certain vacancies are available with respondent No. 1, against which applicant-respondent No. 2 can be accommodated. 3. Notice was issued to the opposite parties, in which reply has been filed, wherein it has been stated that all the vacancies, which were subject matter of selection in pursuance whereof applicant-respondent No. 2 was appointed, have been filled and no vacancy is vacant. So far as other vacancies are concerned, it has been stated that the said vacancies have been advertised and in pursuance thereto, the selection process stands initiated. The writ petition i.e. Civil Writ Petition No. 14036 of 2012 stands filed and an interim order dated 8.8.2012 has been passed by this Court, according to which appointment letters cannot be issued. Counsel for respondent No. 1-Corporation states that interim order still subsists. 4. In the light of the above factual position, although it is an admitted fact that applicant-respondent No. 2 was not served in the writ petition, but the selection and appointment of applicant-respondent No. 2 cannot be sustained in the light of the detailed order dated 30.5.2011 passed by this Court, review of which has been prayed for. 5. 4. In the light of the above factual position, although it is an admitted fact that applicant-respondent No. 2 was not served in the writ petition, but the selection and appointment of applicant-respondent No. 2 cannot be sustained in the light of the detailed order dated 30.5.2011 passed by this Court, review of which has been prayed for. 5. Counsel for applicant-respondent No. 2 has placed reliance upon the observations of the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 7062 of 2003, decided on 1.7.2004, which have been reproduced by the learned Single Judge in its order dated 24.02.2009 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 27 of 2008 (Saveti Devi Vs. State of Haryana and others), wherein the Division Bench, keeping in view the fact that the petitioners were not instrumental in exclusion of the names from the list of the categories of candidates against which they had applied, proceeded to issue directions to accommodate them against the posts of JBT teachers which were lying vacant and reserved for BC(B) category, and were available at the time when the petitioner was sought to be terminated. The said observations of the Division Bench, however, cannot be pressed into service in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, as have been referred to above. Although the Court has sympathy with applicant-respondent No. 2 but in the light of the position in law, as has been laid down by this Court in its order dated 30.5.2011, which is sought to be reviewed, the prayer, as made in the review application and the submissions made by counsel for applicant-respondent No. 2 cannot be accepted. The review application, therefore, stands dismissed.