( 2025:HHC:25910 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Review Petition No. 56/2025 Decided on: 04.08.2025 Anju Kumari & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Hirdaya Ram, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Vikrant Thakur, learned counsel, accept notice on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2. 2. Petitioners’ seek review of Anju Kumari & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2 whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioners was disposed of by permitting respondent No.2-H.P. Public Service Commission to declare the result of examination for the post of Ayurvedic Pharmacy Officer (Post Code 1025) by 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 CWP No.2370/2025 decided a/w connected matter on 30.05.2025 2 ( 2025:HHC:25910 ) following the decision as conveyed by them in their office instructions dated 28.05.2025. Ram Singh & Another Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.3 preferred by some of the petitioners herein against Anju Kumari & Ors.2 was dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench as withdrawn as the appellants therein desired to prefer the review petition. 3. Learned counsel for the parties have informed that Anju Kumari & Ors.2 has been implemented. The result in question stands declared & acted upon and recommendations for appointment have already been made by the H.P. Public Service Commission to the State. 4. The sole ground for reviewing Anju Kumari & Ors.2 urged by learned counsel for the petitioners is that some of the petitioners, who had appeared in the written examination in the concerned examination center had received OMR Sheets but with 4/5 options and in view of the announcement in the examination hall, in order to avoid negative marking, did not mark the option ‘E’. These factual details according to learned counsel for the petitioners could not be incorporated in the writ petition and therefore, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure has now been moved along with this review petition seeking amendment in the writ petition. 3 LPA No. 300/2025 decided on 19.06.2025 3 ( 2025:HHC:25910 ) 5. Firstly, it may be noticed that the facts now sought to be incorporated by way of amendment in the writ petition were admittedly in the knowledge of the petitioners through-out. It is not a case of any development that took place post decision of the writ petition. It was for the petitioners to be diligent at the time of filing of the writ petition and during its proceedings. The writ petition was heard on several occasions in presence of their learned counsel. In fact, a detailed order was passed in the writ petition on 26.05.2025 prior to its next date of hearing on 30.05.2025, when it was decided. In the given facts and circumstances, seeking amendment of the writ petition and putting it as a ground for reviewing the judgment cannot be accepted as a tenable ground, which would fall within the parameters of Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure. It would be appropriate to refer to Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs. State Tax Officer (1) and Another4, wherein the general principles for exercise of powers of review were summarized by the Hon’ble Apex Court as under: - “16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that: - 16.1. A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. 16.2. A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. 16.3 An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an 4 (2024) 2 SCC 362 4 ( 2025:HHC:25910 ) error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review. 16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected.” 16.5 A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.” 16.6 Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. 16.7 An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. 16.8 Even the change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.” The ground urged by the petitioners for reviewing the decision does not fall within the above parameters. There is no error apparent on the face of record. The petitioners cannot be permitted to reopen a decided case by allowing them to amend the writ petition that too for incorporating facts, which were in their knowledge at the time of filing the petition. According, the petition fails and is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 04th August, 2025(rohit)