JUDGMENT :- (Prayer: Application under Order XLVII, Rule 1, read with Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code, to review the order dated 06.10.2020 made in W.A.No.799 of 2019.) Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The review applicants seek to review an order dated 06.10.2020 in a batch of writ petitions and writ appeal, wherein the lead case is W.A.No.799 of 2019. 2. The review applicants contend that the finding at paragraph 103(ii) to the effect that the conditions in the brochures for the years 2014-15 and 2015-16 do not exempt the candidates of All India Quota seats from executing a bond is an error apparent on the face of the record. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the review applicants relies upon the rejoinder of the Directorate of Medical Education which contains a statement to the effect that such a condition had not been included in the prospectus. 3. In the order under review, the Court had taken into consideration the fact that each of the review applicants and other candidates who filled up the All India Quota seats, had duly executed bonds that required them to put in two years of government service. In addition, it was noticed at paragraph 75 that an Information Bulletin for All India Post Graduates Medical Entrance Examination 2014 was provided to all the candidates and that it contained a compilation of frequently asked questions for the All India Quota. In response to question No.30, it was specified that different conditions, including the rendering of service in rural/tribal areas, may be imposed and the conditions may vary from State to State. Consequently, the candidates were instructed to examine these aspects before opting for a seat in a medical college in a particular State. Thus, the order under review duly took into consideration, analysed and interpreted all the documents that were placed for consideration before concluding that there was no exemption for candidates of All India Quota seats as regards the execution of bonds. 4. The next contention advanced by learned counsel for the review applicants is that certificates were released to certain candidates in a discriminatory manner. 4. The next contention advanced by learned counsel for the review applicants is that certificates were released to certain candidates in a discriminatory manner. This aspect has also been taken into consideration in the order under review, wherein it was concluded that such action by the authorities was contrary to the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (2019) 8 SCC 607 (Association of Medical Superspecialty Aspirants and Residents v. Union of India), wherein the requirement of execution of such bonds was upheld. Learned counsel also relies upon an earlier judgment of this Court reported in (2009) 1 MLJ 1103 (Dr.S.Rajesh v. State of Tamil Nadu) wherein it was concluded that the condition of execution of bond does not apply to All India Quota seats. This judgment was also taken into consideration in the order under review. 5. For the reasons aforesaid, the review applicants have failed to establish that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient ground to review the order dated 06.10.2020. Consequently, keeping in mind the limited scope of review jurisdiction, we find that the review applicants have failed to make out a case. Therefore, Review Application No.14 of 2021 is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.