1 2025:CGHC:24120-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 125 of 2025 Sunil Kumar Sharma S/o Ram Dayal Sharma Aged About 53 Years R/o Near Gaushala, Bazarpara Neora, Post Tilda Neora, Distt.- Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Zila Panchayat Baloda-Bazar, Through- Chief Executive Officer, Baloda-Bazar Chhattisgarh 3 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Through Chairman, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Sunil Kumar Sharma in person For Respondent No.1/State For Respondent No.3 : : Mr.Sanghrash Pandey, Government Advocate Mr.Avinash Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.06.16 17:45:43 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 16.06.2025 1. Heard petitioner Sunil Kumar Sharma in person, Mr.Sanghrash Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr.Avinash Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 2. The petitioner has filed this review petition against the order dated 12.03.2025 passed by this Court in WA No.176 of 2025, whereby the Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the writ appeal filed by the petitioner herein. 3. It transfers from the judgment impugned which is sought to be reviewed by the petitioner that the matter was argued by learned counsel Mr.Raza Ali and after hearing him, writ appeal was dismissed on merits. Now, the petitioner has come up before this Court to argue the matter in person and for reviewing the judgment under review. 4. We have perused the impugned judgment under review. 5. It appears that the petitioner by presentation of this review petition seeks an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on merits under the garb of the review petition, which is not permissible and tenable in law. 6. It is well settled that scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and only an error apparent on face of record can be 3 corrected in the said jurisdiction and re-appraisal/re-appreciation cannot be done in exercise of said jurisdiction as that would amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is impermissible in law (Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai1, Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt)2, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others3, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others4, Akhilesh Yavad v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others5 and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others6.) 7. The grounds raised by review petitioner in this review petition cannot be permitted to be raised in review petition. Even otherwise, there is no error apparent on the face of record in the impugned judgment under review warranting invocation of review jurisdiction. 8. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu 1 (1987) 1 SCC 61 2 (1995) 1 SCC 170 3 (1996) 10 SCC 174 4 AIR 2000 SC 1650 5 (2013) 2 SCC 1 6 (2017) 4 SCC 692