10 (ten) number of posts of Sub Inspector (AB) have been informed to be lying vacant after the selection and appointment. The selection for the appointment of SI (AB) in the instant case, having taken place in the year 2010, pursuant to an advertisement issued in 2008 and the writ petition by the petitioner having been filed in the year 2011, it cannot be said that the vacancy position of SI (AB) after the selection and appointment, as above, could not have been within the knowledge of the petitioner even after exercise of due diligence until the said information was furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner, vide letter dated 18.04.2022, to bring it within the meaning of “discovery of new and important matter or evidence” as provided under Order 47 Rule I of the CPC, as recourse to information under RTI Act, 2005, was available to the petitioner even before WP(C)/1750/2011 was filed by the petitioner in the year 2011, challenging the selection made by the authority for the appointment of 115 posts of SI of Police (AB). The review petitioner in the instant case attempted discovery of a new additional facts, by filing the RTI applications on 20.01.2022 and 14.03.2022 as is evident from the reference made in the letter dated 18.04.2022 while furnishing the information sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M. H. Ahmed, which is a date much later in point of time when the WP(C)/1750/2011 was disposed of by this Court on 28.10.2021. In other words, the review petitioner attempted discovery of further facts after the writ petition filed by him was disposed of by this Court without any favourable relief given to the petitioner. The new facts brought into light by the petitioner by the information furnished to his counsel vide letter dated 18.04.2022, issued by the Assistant Inspector General of Police (A)
