1 2025:CGHC:874 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 160 of 2024 1 - Smt. Nandini Mandelkar Wd/o Late Ratnakar Govindrao Mandelkar Aged About 63 Years At Present R/o Shrivilla, Pragyapuram Colony, Guraiya Road, Ward No. 40, Chhindwara, Tahsil And District- Chhindwara Madhya Pradesh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Director Of Public Instruction Lok Shikshan Sanchanalaya Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Central Board Of Secondary Education Through Secretary, Shiksha Kendra 2 Community Centre, Preet Vihar, Delhi 110092 3 - The Aditya Birla Public School Through Its Principal Grasim Vihar, Village Rawan, Baloda Bazar, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Review Petitioner : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Government Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Udit Khatri, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07.01.2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. The review petitioner has filed this petition for review of the order dated Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH 2 27.06.2024 passed in WPS No.3880/2011 whereby the writ petition filed by respondent No.3 was allowed and the order passed by the Director of Public Instructions, Lok Shikshan Sanchanalaya, Raipur (C.G.) dated 22.02.2011 was quashed. 3. Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner would argue that initially, the review petitioner was appointed to the post of Primary Teacher at Delhi Public School, Grasim Vihar, Village Rawan, District Raipur vide order dated 03.06.1997 on probation. He would contend that the services of the review petitioner were confirmed by the respondent authorities. He would further submit that later on, the school was taken over by Aditya Birla Company Ltd. He would contend that the review petitioner was promoted to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher on probation vide order dated 01.12.2002. He would also submit that without conducting any inquiry contrary to the bylaws of the CBSE, the services of the review petitioner were terminated. He would further contend that an appeal was filed and the same was allowed on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was afforded and no inquiry was conducted by the School authorities. He would further contend that the correct facts were not brought to the notice of this Court with regard to the confirmation of services of the review petitioner on the post of Primary Teacher. He would state that as the services of the review petitioner were confirmed, therefore, Aditya Birla Public School was under an obligation to conduct an inquiry. He would further state that the order of confirmation dated 15.06.1999 is placed along with the review petition vide Annexure-A/2. 3 He would also state that there is an admission on the part of the institution in their return filed in Writ Petition No.2392 of 2005 where it is stated that the services of the review petitioner were confirmed vide order dated 15.06.1999. He would pray to recall the order dated 27.06.2024 passed in WPS No.3880 of 2011. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Shrivastava, the learned Senior Advocate would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Sharma. He would submit that the review petitioner has brought new facts and grounds in the review petition. He would contend that the argued facts were not brought at the time of the final hearing of WPS No.3880 of 2011. He would further submit that in the writ petition, a return was filed by the review petitioner but these facts were not stated and no document was placed on record. He would further contend that the review petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Primary Teacher on probation and thereafter, she was appointed to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher on probation and during the continuation of the probation period, her services were terminated according to one of the conditions mentioned in the appointment order. He would further state that as per the terms and conditions of the appointment order, period of probation stipulated in appointment order was not challenged by the review petitioner. He would also state that the review petitioner is seeking the liberty of rehearing of the writ petition, which is not permissible, therefore, the review petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 4 6. A perusal of the order dated 27.06.2024 passed in WPS No.3880 of 2011 would show that the issue with regard to the confirmation of services of the review petitioner was not brought to the notice of this Court. 7. A perusal of the return filed by the review petitioner would show that there is no whisper with regard to confirmation of the services and no document was placed on record to substantiate that the services of the review petitioner were confirmed. 8. In the matter of M/s Northern India (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governer of Delhi, 1980 (2) SCC 167, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “A plea for review, unless the first judicial view is manifestly distorted, is like asking for the moon. A forensic defeat cannot be avenged by an invitation to have a second look, hopeful of discovery of flaws and reversal of result. A review in counsel's mentation cannot repair the verdict once given. So the law laid down must rest in peace.” 9. In the matter of Sajjan Singh and others vs. State of Rajasthan and others [AIR 1965 SC 845], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “the parties are not entitled to seek review of the judgment delivered by this Court merely for purpose for review and fresh decision of the case. The normal principle that judgments pronounced by this Court would be final, cannot be ignored and unless considerations of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.” 10. In the matter of Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others, 1997 (8) SCC 715, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-9 held as under:- “Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be 5 open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise.” 11. In the matter of M/S Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd v. Assam State Electricity Board, 2020 (2) SCC 677, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the petition and held that “The scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and decided.” 12. In the matter of Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy, (2021) 3 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “even the change in law of or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.” 13. In the matter of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa, AIR 1960 SC 137, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-8 held as under:- “8. The main question that arises for our consideration in this appeal by special leave granted by this Court is whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record so as to enable the superior court to call for the records and quash the order by a writ of certiorari or whether the error, if any, was "a mere error not so apparent on the face of the record", which can only be corrected by an appeal if an appeal lies at all.” 14. In the present review petition, the review petitioner has prayed for recall 6 of the order passed by this Court in WPS No. 3880/2011. The prayer made by the review petitioner appears to be misconceived. Further, the case [WPS No.3880/2011] was decided by this Court on 27.06.2024 after discussing the facts and going through the documents available on the record; there is no error of law apparent on the face of the record, therefore, the prayer sought for modifying/recalling of the order passed in WPS No.3880/2011 by way of this review petition is not permissible, and in the opinion of this Court, no ground is made out for review. 15. Accordingly, the instant review petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha