JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar waves service of rule on behalf of the opponents. 2. The present Misc. Civil Application seeking review is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.08.2021 passed in the captioned writ petition. 3. The applicant-State authorities have filed the present application seeking review / recall of the judgment and order dated 03.08.2021 primarily on the ground that the opponent-original petitioners have not disclosed the fact of they having being passed the departmental examination in three chances. 4. Learned Government Pleader Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, while placing reliance on the details (statement–annexed at Annexure-B) in the present review application, has submitted that the opponents-petitioners had joined the service in the year 1993 and had cleared the Sub-Service Departmental Examination (SSD) and thereafter, they were permitted to appear in the Land Records Lower Qualifying (LRQ) examination held on 1998 till 2001, however the opponents did not clear the said examination, after having participated twice. It is submitted that the departmental examination, which was conducted in the year 2001 i.e. on 30.04.2001 to 06.05.2001, all the present opponents had cleared the examination, of which, the result was declared on 22.04.2022 and hence, as per the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994, more particularly Clause 3(9) thereof, they were conferred the benefits on 22.04.2002 i.e. from the date of declaring the result. Thus, it is submitted that since the opponents have not stated the correct facts before the Court, while the matter was being persuaded by them, hence, the judgment and order dated 03.08.2021 conferring the benefits of the higher pay-scale to the petitioners from the date of eligibility is required to be reviewed and recalled. It is submitted that the opponents have not disclosed such vital aspect in the writ petition, hence the order may be recalled. 4.1 Learned Government Pleader has placed reliance on the Rules called the Land Records Lower Qualifying Examination Rules, 2010 and has submitted that as per the said Rules, more particularly Rule 7 thereof, the candidate or the person, who is appearing for the Land Records Lower Qualifying examination, must have completed five years continuous service and passed Sub-Service Departmental Examination, unless he has been exempted from passing that examination. She has submitted that all the opponents-petitioners, after they cleared the SSD examination, were required to clear the examination within three chances in three years, as per Rule 3(1), and since they did not do so and cleared the LRQ examination in the year 2002, they were conferred the benefits of the higher pay-scale from the date of the result of LRQ examination. Thus, it is submitted that instead of their actual date of eligibility, after completion of 9 years in the month of January, 2000, they would be entitled to the higher pay-scale w.e.f. 22.04.2002. Thus, it is submitted that the present review application may be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Majmudar, appearing for the opponents–original petitioners has submitted that the impugned order does not require any interference, as the same is appropriately passed. 5.1 While referring to the judgment and order dated 03.08.2021 of which, the review is sought, he has submitted that in fact, the respondent authorities did not hold the examination as per the Land Records Lower Qualifying Examination Rules, 1970, which were annexed in the petition more particularly Rules 3 and 7 of the Rules, 1970 and hence, the opponents cannot be made to suffer due to the inaction of the respondent authorities. 5.2 Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar, has submitted that as per Rule 7 of the Rules 1970, the respondent authorities were required to hold the examination twice in the months of April and October in a year, however in the present case, the said rule is violated. Additionally, it is submitted that in fact, the respondent authorities have belatedly declared the result of the LRQ examination, almost after one year on 22.04.2002 and hence, the petitioners cannot be made to suffer for belated declaration of result. It is submitted that in fact the submissions of the opponents was that the applicant-State authority has not conducted examination as per Rules. 5.3 Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar, while placing reliance on the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in Special Civil Application No.2899 of 2008 dated 25.02.2016 has submitted that in an identical facts and in light of the provisions of Clause 3(9) of Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994, this Court has ordered for grant of higher pay-scale as per the date of eligibility, instead of passing of examination. He has also placed reliance on the judgment in the case of M.K. Rathod vs. State of Gujarat, 2020 (1) G.C.D. 265 in support of his submissions. 5.4 Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar, has further submitted that in fact a new case is made out by the respondent authorities in the review application and hence, as per the provisions of Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 such review application is not maintainable. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Parsion Devi and Ors. vs. Sumitri Devi and Ors., (1997) 8 S.C.C. 715 . 6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the material available on record. 7. As noted hereinabove, the State authorities have sought the review of the judgment and order dated 03.08.2021 passed in the captioned writ petition, wherein and whereby, this Court had directed the respondent authorities to confer the benefits of higher pay-scale to the petitioners (opponents herein) from the date of eligibility instead of date of declaration of the result of the LRQ examination. It is not in dispute that the Land Record Lower Qualifying examination i.e. LRQ examination is held as per the Rules, which were prevailing at the relevant time i.e. the Rules, 1970, as the examination were held in 2001 hence, the Rules promulgated vide Notification dated 02.06.2010 will not apply. However, the language of Rule, on which the reliance is placed by the respective counsels, is pari materia. Rule 3 of 1970 Rules specifically prescribes that the person, who has become eligible for appearing in the said examination has to clear the examination within three chances and within three years. 8. Rule 7 of 1970 Rules, (Rule 6 of 2010 Rules) stipulates that such examination to be held twice in the months of April and October in a year. Rule 8.1 says that in order to be eligible for appearing in the LRQ examination, the persons belonging to subordinate land record service must have completed five years of continuous service and passed the Sub–Service Departmental Examination. 9. Rule 8.1 says that in order to be eligible for appearing in the LRQ examination, the persons belonging to subordinate land record service must have completed five years of continuous service and passed the Sub–Service Departmental Examination. 9. It is the case of the applicant-State authorities that in fact, the petitioners–present opponents have suppressed the fact about their having appearing in the examination twice, which were held in the years 1998 and 1999 and they have cleared the examination in the third time in the year 2001 and hence, the order is required to be reviewed. 10. In paragraph No.4 of the review application, it is averred that “the first departmental examination was conducted in the year 1998 wherein two of the opponents namely Mr. A.S. Nayee (opponent No.2) and Mr. S.H. Boicha (opponent No.5) had appeared in the examination, however they could not pass all nine papers. Similarly, the second departmental examination (LRQ) was conducted in the year 1999, wherein nine of the present opponents (opponent Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10) had participated but they could not pass all nine papers. Thereafter, the third departmental examination was conducted in the year 2001 i.e. on 30.04.2001 to 06.05.2001, wherein all the present opponents had cleared the examination vide result dated 22.04.2002.” 11. Thus, as per the said averments made in the present application it is not in dispute that all the opponents / original petitioners had cleared the examination within three chances, as provided in the Rule 3 of the Rules, 1970. It is also not in dispute that all the petitioners have become eligible for the first higher pay-scale, after completion of nine years of service from their date of appointment i.e. in January, 2002. The petitioners in their writ petition in Annexure-A (Statement) had given all the details of appearing in the LRQ examination, result of the examination, due date of the first higher pay-scale and the date of actual grant of the first higher pay-scale. It was the case of the original petitioners–opponents that instead of granting the higher pay-scale from the date of result, they are entitled from the date of eligibility since the departmental examination LRQ was not conducted as per the Rules. 12. It was the case of the original petitioners–opponents that instead of granting the higher pay-scale from the date of result, they are entitled from the date of eligibility since the departmental examination LRQ was not conducted as per the Rules. 12. It appears that the petitioners did not mention the dates of appearing in the first two trials, however they had mentioned passing of the departmental examination in their third trial. This Court, while allowing the writ petition in paragraph No.8, has also recorded the statement that the petitioners cannot be made to suffer for inaction of the respondent-State authorities in not holding the LRQ examination. Thus, it appears that the fact of not clearing the examination, which was held in the years 1998 and 1999, was not mentioned before this Court, however it is equally true that the respondent authorities have not held the examination as per Rule 7 of 1970 Rules twice in the months of April and October in a year. The applicant State authorities was required to hold the examination in the months of October and April, however the averments made in paragraph No.4 itself shows that the examination was held first in 1998, thereafter in the year 1999 and then in 2001. Even if, the aforesaid facts are now contested before this Court, they would not make any substantial difference as it is not in dispute that all the opponents have cleared the examination in their third attempt as per the requirement of Rule, 1970. 13. Thus, only the issue, which requires to be examined as to whether the petitioners would be entitled from the higher pays scale from the date of their eligibility i.e. from January, 2002 or from the date of declaration of result i.e. on 22.04.2002 (or on 23.04.2002), which the respondent authorities had already conferred. 14. At this stage, it would be apposite to place reliance on the judgment dated 25.02.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No.2899 of 2008, wherein in an identical issue in the case of LRQ and HRQ examinations and after examining the provisions of Clause 3(9) of the Resolution dated 16.08.1994, of which reliance is placed by the applicants in the present case. The Coordinate Bench, after placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K.K. Gohil vs. State of Gujarat, (2015) 9 S.C.C. 652 has held that the person would be entitled to higher pay-scale on completion of nine years of service instead of date of passing of the departmental examination. The facts of the case are recorded in paragraph No.8, which read as under :- “8. Having considered the submissions canvassed on behalf of learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material produced on record, it has emerged that deemed date promotion was granted to the petitioner on the post of Deputy Mamlatdar from 20.03.1988. Petitioner was on leave for a period of 880 days during period between year 1993 to 1996 and therefore, if the said period is excluded, even then he has completed 9 years of service on 11.11.1999. The request of the petitioner is to grant the higher grade scale from the said date, whereas, it is the case of the respondent that when the petitioner has passed the HRQ Examination on 20.12.2003, he is entitled to get the benefit from that date and not from 1999. Thus, for considering the aforesaid controversy, Clause 3(9) of Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 is required to be considered. Clause 3(9) provides as under: “Clause 3(9): “If an employee, for the purpose of promotion, passes the departmental examination after completion of 9 years in his cadre, then higher pay scale shall be sanctioned on the basis of eligibility from the date of passing of such examination.” Thus, the benefit of higher grade scale shall be sanctioned on the basis of the eligibility from the date of passing the departmental examination. Therefore, the next question would be, if the departmental examination is not held during the qualifying period, whether the petitioner is entitled to get benefit of the same or not. If the facts of the present case are carefully examined, it is revealed that petitioner appeared in the aforesaid examination for the first time when it was held in September 1991. However, he was declared failed. Another examination was held in September 1993. But, at that time, he had not remained present because of his illness. Thereafter, no intimation was given to the petitioner with regard to the examination which was held in the years 1997, 1999. However, he was declared failed. Another examination was held in September 1993. But, at that time, he had not remained present because of his illness. Thereafter, no intimation was given to the petitioner with regard to the examination which was held in the years 1997, 1999. The said fact is reflected from the document produced on record. Document at page 78 of the compilation clearly indicates that when the list was sent by the office of District Collector, Ahmedabad on 06.12.2001, giving permission to the employees for appearing in the HRQ Examination which was scheduled to be held on December 2001, against the name of the petitioner which is at Sr. No.37 in column No.7, it is mentioned that it was 3rd attempt of the petitioner. Thus, learned AGP is not right in making the submission that petitioner cleared the examination in the 5th attempt. When the examination was conducted in the year 2002, in the 3rd attempt i.e. within prescribed chances as per the Rules, petitioner cleared the said examination when the result was declared on 20.12.2003.” 15. After considering the judgment in the case of K.K. Gohil (supra), the Coordinate Bench has held thus :- “10. If the facts of the present case are considered keeping in mind the aforesaid decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that if the department is not organizing the departmental examination during the eligibility period for getting the higher pay scales, then in such case, the higher pay scale benefit cannot be stalled on such ground. 11. Petitioner has cleared the examination in 3rd attempt as per the Rules and therefore, he was entitled to get the higher grade scale on completion of 9 years of service i.e. from 11.11.1999 and therefore, the respondents have committed an error while passing the impugned order on 01.09.2006. Petitioner is therefore entitled to get the said benefit from 11.11.1999.” 16. Thus, even if the fact of passing the departmental examination on the third chance and non-clearing of the examination by the opponents in the first two chances i.e. in the years 1998 and 1999 will have no impact on their eligibility of the higher pay-scale from the date of completion of nine years from the date of their appointment since the Rules permit three chances for a candidate to clear the same. The Rules also contemplate of holding departmental examination twice in a month, which is not followed in the present case. Hence, if a candidate clears the examination within three prescribed chances, he will not lose his claim for higher pay-scale from his actual date of eligibility. 17. In the present case as noticed hereinabove, since the opponents–original petitioners have cleared the examination within prescribed three chances coupled with the fact that the applicant-State authorities did not hold the examination as per the provisions of Rule 7 of 1970 Rules, twice in the months of April and October in a year and also declared the result belatedly, after a period of one year from holding the examination, the opponents/petitioners cannot be made to suffer for the inaction of the applicants for not following their own Rules and also declaring the result belatedly. It is also noticed by me that the there is difference of only three months in conferring the benefit of higher pay-scale from the date of eligibility and the date of declaration of results. The opponents-petitioners became eligible for the higher pay-scale, after completion of nine years from the date of appointment in the month of January, 2002 as per the policy dated 16.08.1994, whereas the result of the examination was declared after one year on 22.04.2002 from holding the departmental examination, which was held on 30.04.2001 to 06.05.2001. If the results of the departmental examination were declared earlier i.e. before January, 2002 or within six months, then the question of filing the petition as well as the present review application would not have arisen. Thus, the opponents cannot be made to suffer for the inaction of the applicant-State authority. 18. This Court does not find any cogent or convincing reason for reviewing and recalling the judgment and order dated 03.08.2021. Hence, the present review application stands rejected. Rule is discharged.