ORDER : AJAY RASTOGI, J. Instant review application has been filed for recalling of the order dt.15-2-2017. 2. The writ petition was filed by the writ petitioners with the complaint that the State Government failed to fill the vacancies of the year 2009-10 & onwards and taking note of the grievance of the writ petitions, this Court disposed of the writ petition vide order dt.15-2-2017 with direction to the state authorities to determine vacancies of the post of Principal/Joint Director and consider candidature of the officers who are falling in the zone of consideration and fill in accordance with the Scheme of Rules, 2010. 3. Counsel submits that they were not party to the proceedings and has filed application seeking leave of the Court to file review application and submits that although the order appears to be innocuous and the posts are to be filled in accordance with the Scheme of Rules but the conditions of eligibility and the relevant Scheme of Rules to be looked into by the State Government was not brought to the notice of the Court and in fact it is the review petitioners who hold relevant qualification laid down by AICTE which the Government is under obligation to adopt while making appointment/promotion under the Rules and if the present order is not being interfered & recalled their rights are going to be seriously jeopardized. 4. This Court makes it clear that the interse eligibility/seniority has not been examined by this Court and what being observed is that after due determination of vacancies the same may be filled in accordance with the Scheme of Rules and which Rules have to be applied & what procedure has to be followed it is for the State Government to consider but in the given facts & circumstances at least the filling of vacancies cannot be ruled out and if the review petitioner felt aggrieved of the action being taken by the State Government or is in contravention of the Scheme of Rules as being prayed for, the review petitioners are at liberty to avail remedy which the law permits. 5. After hearing counsel for the review petitioner this Court finds no apparent error on the face of record which may call for recalling of the order. 6. Consequently, the review petition stands dismissed. However, the review petitioner is at liberty to avail remedy which the law permits.