JUDGMENT 1. Heard Shri M. J. Quadir, learned counsel for the applicant who has preferred this application praying for review of the judgment and order dated 29.10.2019 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 6905/2010. 2. The applicant was the respondent No. 5 in the instant case. 3. At the outset, the learned counsel has fairly submitted that though the applicant/respondent No. 5 was served, due to some misunderstanding, she did not appear or contest the case. In fact, office note dated 13.06.2017 had also indicated that A/D card in respect of the said respondent No. 5 was received back and this Court vide order dated 20.08.2018 had observed that service upon the respondent No. 5 was completed. The said office note as well as observation of this Court had also been reflected in paragraph 3 of the judgment dated 29.10.2019. Though the learned counsel urges that there are certain errors apparent warranting invocation of the powers of review, this Court is of the view that when the applicant as respondent No. 5 had chosen not to contest the writ petition on her own volition, it may not appropriate to later approach the same Court to file a review. 4. Shri Quadir, the learned counsel has submitted that the initial appointment of the petitioner was not pursuant to a properly conducted recruitment process and was against a temporary vacancy. It appears that this Court had taken note of the said submission and also relied upon a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in case of temporary Government employee wherein it has been held that safeguards before imposing of the penalty are also available to such employees. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that no case of review is made out. 6. Accordingly, the instant application is rejected.