1 2025:CGHC:32732 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 157 of 2025 Dr. Anil Kumar Tripathi S/o Dr. Ram Kailash Tripathi now Aged About 43 Years Posted At Government Ayurveda Aushadhalay Akalsara, Jaijaipur, Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh), District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Health And Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Post Office, Atal Nagar, Thana - Nawa Raipur, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director Directorate of Ayurveda, Yoga And Prakritik Chikitsa, Unani Siddha And Homeopathy (Ayush), Purana Mantralaya Parisar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - District Ayurveda Adhikari Office of District Ayurveda Officer, In Front of District Hospital Janjgir, Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh), District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Tripathi, in person For State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 14.07.2025 1. By this review petition, the review petitioner seeks review of the order dated 18.02.2025 passed in WPS No.2610 of 2021 and YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.07.16 19:05:29 +0530 2 analogous cases, by which this Court had disposed of the writ petition while directing the State authorities to make Rules and to pass Circular for regularization of the Ayurvedic Medial Officers in terms of letter dated 11.01.2017 issued by the State Government and in view of the Cabinet resolution dated 10.06.2016 as per law within a period of ten weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the impugned order. 2. The review petitioner has filed this review petition with the following reliefs:- “10.1 Review and recall the impugned judgment dated 18 February 2025; 10.2 Admit the new and important evidence obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005, including the recruitment rules laid down by the State Government, the selection list, reservation roster, proceedings of the Selection Committee, and other relevant documents (Annexures P-5 to P-12): 10.3 Correct the errors apparent on the face of the record in paragraphs 11, 21, and 25 of the impugned judgment, including the erroneous observation regarding the absence of a recruitment process, the misidentification of the Petitioner's profession, and the conclusion that regularization requires an examination by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission. 3 10.4 Grant the regularization of the Petitioner's services as an Ayurveda Medical Officer by issuing a writ of mandamus; and 10.5 Pass such further or other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the interests of justice, equity, and good conscience. The Petitioner, having served the State with unwavering dedication for over 17 years, humbly submits that granting this prayer will uphold the principles of fairness, equality, and the rule of law, securing their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall, as in duty bound, ever pray.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is having degree of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (BAMS) and were appointed as Medical Officers (Ayurvedic) by the State Government on contractual basis way back in the year 2007 – 2008. His appointment has been made strictly in accordance with law having being qualified for appointment to the said post. Petitioner has been working in the said post since their appointment way back in the year 2007 - 2008 and till date, there is no break in their services. After completion of more than 10 years of their services, it is the legitimate expectation of the petitioner to receive the benefits of regularization, including the 4 attendant service benefits that are afforded to regular employees. After passing of the judgment by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others, AIR 2006 SC 1806 and further after issuance of notification dated 05.03.2008 by the State Government in terms of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court Umadevi’s case for regularization of Class – III and Class – IV which states that employees, after rendering of services for more than 10 years, would be regularized and therefore, petitioner is also in expectation that his case will also be considered for regularization and they will be given all service benefits. In this respect, he has moved several representations to the authorities for considering their case for regularization. His association has also approached higher authorities for regularization of petitioner, however, regrettably, the effort was unsuccessful and ultimately, State Government has issued a notification stating that 532 post of Ayurvedic Medical Officer may be exempted from the purview of the State Public Service Commission’s competitive recruitment process. The aforementioned decision was made by the State Government with the intention of retaining the services of the doctors and regularizing their positions. Notably, a Cabinet resolution was also passed on this subject, vide resolution dated 10.06.2016. Concerned authorities have also recommended the case of petitioner for consideration of regularization after passing of order in the matter of Umadevi (Supra). Following said order, 5 State Government has also issued a notification dated 05.03.2008 whereby, for one time settlement, it was directed to regularize service of Class – III and Class – IV employee who are working since 10 years or more than 10 years. Earlier also, during pandemic, disease dysentery was spread over Bastar region way back in the year 1984, in which, State Government has taken services of Ayurvedic Doctors on an urgent basis and later on, those Doctors were regularized. Present petitioners, Ayurvedic Medical Officers, are also entitled for consideration of service for their regularization. 4. The review petitioner in person submits that the actions of the respondents are arbitrary, illicit, unlawful and bad in law. He further submits that there is error apparent on the face of the record as the official documents reveal that the State Government duly issued a formal advertisement, prepared a reservation roster and select list as also conducted a transparent merit-based recruitment process in accordance with Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2004. It has been contended that in paragraph-21 of the impugned order, there is mis-identification of the petitioner’s profession, as he is Ayurvedic Medical Officer, whereas in the impugned order, it has been mentioned as “Veterinary Doctor”, which needs to be corrected. It has been further contended that there was suppression of material facts, evidence and vital documents by the respondents as well as there was non-consideration of material document regarding 6 CREDA Regulations. It has been submitted that there was violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as well as the learned Judge has overlooking the vested right to regularization. Therefore, the impugned order dated 18.02.2025 is liable to be recalled. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel supported the impugned order and submits that after appreciating the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties as also after perusal of the material on record, the Court has rightly passed the impugned order, which warrants no interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the pleadings and documents annexed with the review petition. 7. This Court, after taking note of all the relevant aspects of the matter, had arrived at a finding that though petitioner in the present matter is Ayurvedic Medical Officer, but he was appointed on adhoc basis against vacant post after following due process of law and after verification of qualifications. He is still working on the said post and his work is still necessitated by the State Government and came to the conclusion that the State Government may not pass an order of regularization, but, in the meantime, directed the State Government to come up with some concrete proposal / circular for regularization of these Doctors looking to earlier requirement and further looking to the fact that services of the Doctors are still 7 required by the State Government and the petitioner is working since long back, directed the State Government to consider the case of 37 petitioners including the petitioner in person and to consider regarding framing of Regularization Rules or any Circular with respect to regularization of Doctors who are working since more than eight years and also mentioned in the impugned order that it was entirely upon the State Government to make Rules and to pass Circular for regularization of these Ayurvedic Medical Officers in terms of letter dated 11.01.2017 issued by the State Government and in view of the Cabinet resolution dated 10.06.2016, as per law within ten weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the impugned order. 8. There is no error apparent on the face of the record and the attempt of the review petitioner is to re-agitate the issue which has already been considered and decided by this Court. Even otherwise, the law with regard to review of an order is well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by a Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision in the case. Normally the principle is that 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, which is missing in this case. 9. It is well settled principle of law that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope 8 of ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Even in exercise of review jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the review petitioner has not produced any ground for review. It appears that the review 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. 10. It is well settled principle that under the garb of the review petition, the review petitioner should not be permitted to argue the entire case afresh which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law as held by the Supreme Court in case of Meera Bhanjan v. Smt. Nirmal Kumar Choudhary reported in AIR 1995 SC 455, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India & Others reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa & Others reported in AIR 2000 SC 85, Government of T.N. & Others v. M. Ananchu Asari & Others reported in (2005) 2 SCC 332 and in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd & Others reported in (2005) 6 SCC 651. 11. Insofar as the contention of the petitioner in person that in paragraph-21 of the impugned order, there is mis-identification of the petitioner’s profession, as he is Ayurvedic Medical Officer, whereas in the impugned order, it has been mentioned as “Veterinary Doctor”, which needs to be corrected. 9 12. In view of the above, this Court finds force in the said submission of the petitioner in person. 13. In that view of the matter, in paragraph-21 of the impugned order dated 18.02.2025 passed in WPS No.2610/2021, in place of “Veterinary Doctors”, it should be read as “Ayurvedic Medical Officers”. 14. In the result, the review petition is dismissed. However, the order dated 18.02.2025 passed in WPS No.2610/2021 is modified only to the extent that in paragraph-21, “Veterinary Doctors” be corrected to read as “Ayurvedic Medical Officers”. 15. For the foregoing reasons, this review petition insofar as it relates to correction of “Ayurvedic Medical Officers” in place of “Veterinary Doctors” is concerned, is allowed, however the other grounds and contentions are rejected. 16. A copy of this order be placed along with the records of WPS No.2610/2021 and analogous cases. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh