2025:HHC:32987 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Review Petition No. 72 of 2020 Date of decision: 19.09.2025 Kehar Singh & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Addl. A.G., for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. Dr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 24, 28 to 30, 35 and 37 to 39. Respondents No. 17, 20, 22, 27, 32 and 36 are ex parte vide order dated 18.11.2021. Respondents No. 4, 7, 9, 10, 19, 32 and 34 are ex parte vide order dated 21.12.2021. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge This review petition has been preferred by the petitioners against the judgment dated 15.10.2020, passed in CWP No. 2001 of 2015, titled as Kehar Singh & Ors. vs. State of H.P. & Ors., with the plea that though, this Court in para-39 has 2 2025:HHC:32987 recorded the fact that respondent-Bank had been sponsoring the candidate to acquire HDC/HDCM without caring for claim of seniority of others and considering such employees for further promotion on the basis of such higher diploma and also that some persons, who had acquired higher diploma in Corporation HDC/HDMC course without any permission of the bank, but juniors to the petitioners, had also been considered for further promotion on the basis of the said diploma, however, has not passed direction in this regard entitling the petitioners to be considered for promotion from the date of promotion of the employees junior to them. 2. Learned counsel for respondent-Bank has submitted that in para-35 of the impugned judgment, it has been categorically recorded by the Court that none of the petitioners, who were undergraduate, were eligible for further promotion for want of eligibility criteria provided for promotion from Grade-IV to Grade-III and, therefore, it has been submitted that even after having diploma referred supra, petitioners would not have been entitled for promotion as claimed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners to substantiate plea to review the impugned order has referred the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Food Corporation of India & Anr. vs. Seil Ltd. & Ors. (2008) (3) SCC 440, by referring following paras, which read as under:- 3 2025:HHC:32987 “24. The High Court, in an appropriate case, may grant such relief to which the writ petitioner would be entitled to in law as well as in equity. 25. We do not, thus, find any substance in the contention of Mr. Sharan that while exercising its review jurisdiction, no interest on the principal sum could have been directed to be granted by the High Court. A writ court exercises its power of Review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India itself. While exercising the said jurisdiction, it not only acts as a court of law but also as a court of equity. A clear error or omission on the part of the court to consider a justifiable claim on its part would be subject to review; amongst others on the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit (An act of the courts shall prejudice none). We appreciate the manner in which the learned Judge accepted his mistake and granted relief to the respondents. 26. We, however, although agree with the opinion of the Division Bench of the High Court on the legal principle in regard to payment of interest, as has been enunciated by it, having regard to the fact that the respondents did not prefer any appeal, are of the opinion that increase in the rate of interest, as has been directed by the Division Bench, cannot be upheld.” 4. In this regard, reliance has also been placed on the pronouncement of Apex Court in State of Jammu & Kashmir vs. R. K. Zalpuri & Ors. (2015) 15 SCC 602. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the recent judgment of the Apex Court in SLP No. 4 2025:HHC:32987 ( C) 12787 of 2025, titled as Malleeswari vs. K. Suguna & Anr., decided on 08.09.2025, to repel the contention of the petitioners by referring paras 15 and 17, which read as under:- “15. It is axiomatic that the right of appeal cannot be assumed unless expressly conferred by the statute or the rules having the force of a statute. The review jurisdiction cannot be assumed unless it is conferred by law on the authority or the Court. Section 114 and Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC deal with the power of review of the courts. The power of review is different from appellate power and is subject to the following limitations to maintain the finality of judicial decisions: 15.1 The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. 15.2 Review is not to be confused with appellate powers, which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court. 15.3 In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. A review petition, it must be remembered, has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise. 15.4 The power of review can be exercised for the correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits specified in the statute governing the exercise of power. 15.5 The review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. Hence, it is invoked only to prevent a 5 2025:HHC:32987 miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors. ... 17. Having noticed the distinction between the power of review and appellate power, we restate the power and scope of review jurisdiction. Review grounds are summed up as follows: 17.1 The ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence is a ground available if it is demonstrated that, despite the exercise of due diligence, this evidence was not within their knowledge or could not be produced by the party at the time, the original decree or order was passed. 17.2 Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record may be invoked if there is something more than a mere error, and it must be the one which is manifest on the face of the record. Such an error is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision. An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. 17.3 Lastly, the phrase ‘for any other sufficient reason’ means a reason that is sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the other two categories.” 6. I have gone through the record and considered the submissions made by the parties. 7. Petitioner had preferred CWP No. 2001 of 2015. In prayer clause, there is no prayer for granting relief as being claimed now in the present review petition. Further that even the persons so referred in para-39 of the judgment have not 6 2025:HHC:32987 been arrayed as party-respondent in the petition preferred by the petitioner. 8. Otherwise also, case of employees, who were not being considered eligible for promotion and has been taken in directions No. IV to VIII contained in para-78 of the impugned judgment. The prayer in the petition was with respect to inaction on the part of the respondents, particularly, on the part of Registrar Cooperatives, in considering the proposal submitted by the respondent-Bank and the said prayer has already been allowed. 9. In Food Corporation of India’s case (supra), it has been observed that a clear error or omission on the part of the Court to consider justifiable claim on its part would be subject to review amongst other on the principle that ‘an act of the Court shall prejudice none’. 10. In present case, there is no error or omission on the part of the Court, apparent on the face of record and further that in case prayer of the petitioners is accepted, then it definitely shall cause prejudice to the persons, who have already been promoted and are not party in the petition because claim for promotion and seniority by petitioners above them cannot be adjudicated in their absence. 11. In the given facts and circumstances and considering the pronouncement of the Apex Court, I am of the 7 2025:HHC:32987 considered view that there is no error and illegality apparent on the face of record warranting modification in the impugned judgment by invoking the provisions of review. 12. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed, so also pending applications, if any. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge 19th September 2025 (sanjeev)