BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. - (1.)This review application under Chapter IX Rule 14 of the Rules of the Court, 1952 has been filed by the State for review of the judgement and order dtd. 31/1/2023 passed by this Court in Writ-A No. 26634 of 2018.
(2.)The factual matrix of the case is:-
(a) That respondent-petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 6425 (SS) of 2007, tilted as Om Prakash Chaudhary and four others vs. State of U.P. and three others, challenging the termination order dtd. 12/9/2007 and consequential order dtd. 17/9/2007. The said writ petition was dismissed vide order dtd. 7/3/2011, so far it relates to the respondent-petitioner.

(b) Thereafter, the respondent-petitioner again filed Writ-A No.48221 of 2013, titled as Om Prakash Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. and six others, with the prayer that since the case of the similarly situated persons is being considered, therefore, a direction may be issued to the State-authorities to consider the case of the respondent-petitioner as well. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dtd. 9/9/2023 with direction that in case policy decision has been taken to consider the similarly situated candidates, then the case of the petitioner should also be considered by the authority, in accordance with law, in case the petitioner falls within the consideration zone of the aforementioned policy.

(c) Thereafter, the respondent-petitioner again filed Writ-A No.63286 of 2014, titled as Om Prakash Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. and five others, with prayer to consider the claim of the respondent-petitioner for reinstatement/ reappointment in service on the post of Constable in view of the judgement and orders passed by the Supreme Court as well as by this Court. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of vide order dtd. 26/11/2014 with direction to consider the case of the petitioner in case he falls in the zone of consideration.

(d) In pursuance of the direction issued by this Court on 9/9/2013 in Writ-A No.48221 of 2013, the representation preferred by the respondent-petitioner was considered and rejected vide order dtd. 3/10/2014.

(e) The order dtd. 3/10/2014 along with termination order dtd. 12/9/2007 were challenged by the respondent-petitioner in Writ-A No.26634 of 2018, which was allowed by this Court vide judgement and order dtd. 31/1/2023 and the same is sought to be reviewed by way of the present review application.

(3.)Learned counsel for the review-applicant submits that Writ-A No.26634 of 2018 has been filed by the respondent-petitioner, who had earlier filed Writ Petition No.6425 (SS) of 2007 challenging the same termination order dtd. 12/9/2007 and the consequential order dtd. 17/9/2007 before this Court, which was dismissed vide order dtd. 7/3/2011. Therefore, the relief claimed by the respondent-petitioner in Writ-A No.26634 of 2018 is the same, which was earlier refused by this Court in Writ Petition No.6425 (SS) of 2007. The respondent-petitioner has specifically stated in paragraph-1 of Writ-A No.26634 of 2018 that "this is the first writ petition filed by him before this Court for the same cause of action and no other writ petition is pending or disposed of", which is concealment of material fact because the respondent-petitioner had already filed Writ Petition No.6425 (SS) of 2007 for the same relief, which was refused by this Court. He further submits that the respondent-petitioner had played fraud before this Court by concealing the material fact because nowhere in the writ petition, it is indicated that he had earlier filed Writ Petition No.6425 (SS) of 2007, which was dismissed and the impugned termination order dtd. 12/9/2007 and the consequential order dtd. 17/9/2007 were not interfered with by this Court.