JUDGMENT : NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Rajendra Narayan in respect of Civil Review No. 30 of 2016 and Sri Anil Kumar Sinha learned counsel for the Railways in respect of Civil Review No. 180 of 2016. 2. Both these review applications are directed against the judgment and order dated 08.10.2015, passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13423 of 2015. The review petitioner in Civil Review No. 30 of 2016 was respondent no. 5 Krishnadeo Prasad in the writ proceedings. Railways were the respondents in the writ proceedings as well. 3. Sri Rajendra Narayan, learned Senior Counsel in support of first review application draws our attention to various Railway Board circulars with regard to evaluation and reevaluation of departmental answer books. His effort has been that in view of various Railway Board circulars, which he accepts, were not even noticed by the Tribunal upon these applications to the Tribunal. The reevaluation done in respect to the writ petitioner’s answer-sheet was incorrectly done. These are questions of fact. Both the parties including the Railways were heard by the Tribunal as well as by this Court. The issues, as has been sought to be now raised, were not raised in course of hearing, as before the Tribunal nor before this Court. In such a situation, it would be highly improper for us to rehear the matter and deliver judgment. If the review petitioner, who was respondent no. 5 in the writ proceedings, is not satisfied by our judgment and feels that the judgment is erroneous, he has the liberty of challenging our judgment in appeal, but, certainly, in such a situation, review is not the remedy. Civil Review No. 30 of 2016 is dismissed. 4. By Civil Review No. 180 of 2016 filed by the Railways, Railways wants this Court to review the order to the extent this Court passed an order in favour of respondent no. 5 in the writ proceedings. In order to appreciate the controversy, we may once again visit the facts. 5. In a departmental examination for promotion the writ petitioner Shambhu Kumar did not succeed in written examination, whereas respondent no. 5 to the writ petition Krishna Deo Prasad succeeded. He also succeeded in interview and, accordingly, was selected for promotion. Shambhu Kumar complained. Vigilance enquiries were made and thereafter the General Manager sent his answer-sheet for reevaluation. 5. In a departmental examination for promotion the writ petitioner Shambhu Kumar did not succeed in written examination, whereas respondent no. 5 to the writ petition Krishna Deo Prasad succeeded. He also succeeded in interview and, accordingly, was selected for promotion. Shambhu Kumar complained. Vigilance enquiries were made and thereafter the General Manager sent his answer-sheet for reevaluation. While doing so, he kept one post vacant in the matter of promotion. Upon reevaluation Shambhu Kumar passed and was called for interview. Interview was taken, but after 14 months of the first batch of interview. He qualified. The result was that respondent no. 5 Krishna Deo Prasad was pushed out and place had to be made for Shambhu Kumar. It is this step that was challenged before the Tribunal by Krishna Deo Prasad and he succeeded and, thus, the Tribunal ordered that as Shambhu Kumar is now to be removed, he would not be required to pay or reimburse the Railways for excess payment received. Similarly, Krishna Deo Prasad, who was now to be brought back, would not claim any back wages but would be granted notional seniority. Looking to these facts, which were available on the record, and the order of the Tribunal, we directed the Railways that one seat that was kept vacant be made available to respondent no. 5 Krishna Deo Prasad where he was reinstated pursuant to Tribunal’s order having been earlier selected in the year 2010 itself. 6. Railways by this review application states that there is no post vacant to accommodate Krishna Deo Prasad and, as such, he would have to be reverted. We cannot accept this in view of the findings as recorded in the Tribunal’s order which was based on the written statement of the Railways that one post had been kept vacant by the General Manager and that being so, respondent no. 5 of the writ petition has to be accommodated on that post. We may further note that even if the post is not available, such a supernumerary post to meet the contingency can always be created. It would only be valid for the service life of respondent no. 5 of the writ petition. This is to avoid injustice to either party. We would, thus, not consider it fit to review our earlier order as no case for review has been made out. It would only be valid for the service life of respondent no. 5 of the writ petition. This is to avoid injustice to either party. We would, thus, not consider it fit to review our earlier order as no case for review has been made out. Review application as filed by the Railways also is thus dismissed. It is expected that the Railways would end the litigation by complying with the orders forthwith.