By the Court.—Heard Sri Anil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner was working as Seenchpal in the department of the respondent No. 5 Executive Engineer, Etawah Division, Lower Ganga Canal, Etawah. It appears that for the purpose of promotion from Seenchpal to Seenchpal Paryavekshak a select list dated 2.6.1984 was prepared. It is the contention of the petitioner that on the basis of select list the petitioner alongwith other Seenchpal have been promoted and allowed to work as Seenchpal Paryavekshak. However, the said select list has been cancelled vide order dated 21.2.1986. The petitioner challenged this order of cancellation dated 21.2.1986 before the State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow by a claim petition No. 229/F/IV/87. In paragraph 25 of the claim petition the petitioner had contended that the petitioner was promoted but after the cancellation he was reverted while his junior were allowed to be promoted.

3. The Tribunal vide order dated 30.1.1996 rejected the claim petition. The Tribunal held that the select list was not prepared in accordance to the rule and, therefore, has been rightly cancelled. The Tribunal observed that the rule provide that the Selection Committee should have been constituted in accordance to the rule, before the preparation of the select list and since the select list was not prepared in accordance to the rule the cancellation order was justified. The Tribunal further observed that in paragraph 25 of the claim petition it has been stated, that the petitioner has been reverted and his junior has been promoted, however, from the counter-affidavit/written statement it is clear that the petitioner was also promoted but has been reverted, therefore, it cannot be said that he has been superseded in promotion. The Tribunal further observed that this question cannot be decided because reversal order has not been challenged by the petitioner.

4. The petitioner challenged the order of the Tribunal in the Writ Petition No. 15705 of 1996 which has been disposed of vide order dated 31.8.2001. It appears that during the course of argument it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has never been reverted and the facts, to the contrary, have wrongly been noticed by the Tribunal in the impugned order. While disposing of the writ petition this Court observed as follows :

“I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. It is well-settled in law that in the event wrong facts are noticed by any Court or authority in its order, the person aggrieved may approach that very Court or authority for ventilation of his grievances. The revisional or appeellate Court or higher authority has got no right to interfere in such matter. In the present case if the petitioner felt that the facts were wrongly noticed by the respondent No. 1 his remedy was before the Tribunal itself and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is, however, observed that the petitioner can still approach the Tribunal for ventilation of his grievances. If any application is filed by the petitioner before respondent No. 1 within three weeks from today, the same shall be disposed of finally preferably within a period of two months from the date of a certified copy of this order is produced before him, after following the procedure prescribed under the law. With these observations and directions, this petition stands finally disposed of.”

5. In pursuance thereof after 46 days from the date of the order petitioner filed a review application before the Tribunal, the Tribunal vide order dated 22.2.2007 rejected the review application. The Tribunal observed that there was no mistake in the judgment in taking notice of the fact pleaded in the petition and no sufficient ground of the review has been made out; the select list has not been prepared in accordance to the rules after constitution of the Committee,