- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6878-DB RP No. 723 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T REVIEW PETITION NO.723 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SRI K. V. JAYARAMU S/O. SRI VENKATAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS WORKED AS JAILER DISTRICT PRISONS, MADIKERI RESIDENT OF KESTHUR VILLAGE AND POST MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401. …PETITIONER (BY SRI S.Y. RODAGI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI RANGANATHA S. JOIS, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (SERVICE RULES) VIDHANASOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE CHAIRMAN SELECTION COMMITTEE DEPARTMENT OF PRISONS NO.4, SHESHADRI ROAD BENGALURU-560 009. Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6878-DB RP No. 723 of 2022 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS NO.4, SESHADRI ROAD BENGALURU-560 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3) * * * THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 24.5.2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5220/2022 (S-KSAT) OF THIS HON’BLE COURT VIDE ANNEXURE-A, PERUSE THE SAME AND MODIFY AS PER RULE 5(1)(B) OF THE KGS RULES, 1957, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED. THIS REVIEW PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR) This petition is filed by the petitioner under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC to review the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.5220/2022 (S-KSAT) dated 24.05.2022 vide Annexure-A and to modify the order as per Rule 5(1)(b) of the KGS Rules, 1957 insofar as petitioner is concerned. 2. Learned counsel Sri S.Y.Rodagi for the petitioner is present before the Court physically and seeks short - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6878-DB RP No. 723 of 2022 accommodation to proceed with the matter on the premise that counsel on record namely Sri Ranganath S.Jois is having some personal inconvenience. 3. Learned AGA for respondent – State is present before the Court physically. 4. The Co-ordinate Bench in its order at paragraph 4 of the writ petition has observed that it is fairly admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the tribunal has been implemented by the respondents and an order of appointment dated 05.01.2017 was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner has also joined the service without any demur. In paragraph 5 it is observed that “now on hindsight, the petitioner seeks to unsettle the settled position which the Tribunal has categorically refused to do so and which order has been accepted and acted upon. The Tribunal while granting reliefs has clearly held that the applicant/instant petitioner in the background of the facts and circumstances of the case, is not eligible for any retrospective service benefits.” 5. Keeping in view the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and also on perusal of the order under review, it is relevant to refer the reliance of the Hon’ble - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6878-DB RP No. 723 of 2022 Supreme Court in the case of SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL vs. STATE TAX OFFICER ((2023) SCC ONLINE 1406) wherein it is held as under: 9. In the words of Krishna Iyer J., (as His Lordship then was) “a plea of 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 the Counsel’s mentation cannot repair the verdict once given. So, the law laid down must rest in peace. 10. It is also well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal 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. 11. In PARSION DEVI AND OTHERS VS. SUMITRI DEVI AND OTHERS ((1997) 8 SCC 715)), this Court made very pivotal observations: - “9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be 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 of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6878-DB RP No. 723 of 2022 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 a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.” 15. It is very pertinent to note that recently the Constitution Bench in Beghar Foundation vs. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retired) and Others, held that even the change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment of co- ordinate Bench or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review. 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid reliance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this review petition does not survive for consideration. Consequently, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE DKB