1 2025:CGHC:37636 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 186 of 2025 1 - Haridas Manikpuri S/o Mohandas Manikpuri Aged About 53 Years Occupation- Teacher, Government Middle School Bela Block Division Korba, District Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Public Instruction Directorate Chhattisgarh First Floor, C-Block Indiravati Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Joint Director Education Department Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Collector And Chairman District Rationalization Committee Korba District Korba (C.G.) 5 - Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Revenue) Korba District Korba (C.G.) 6 - Block Education Officer Korba District Korba (C.G.) 7 - Divya Sahu Teacher Middle School Bela, Block Division Korba District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Deputy G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.08 14:57:21 +0530 2 31/07/2025 1. This petition is filed seeking review of the order dated 16-06-2025 passed in WPS No. 4423/2025, by which this Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did her postgraduate in the Hindi subject and teaches the Hindi subject in the school. The rationalization instruction dated 11-07-2014 does not support the finding of this court in the light of the notification dated 05-03-2019 published by the State government. Without calling for any reply from the State Government, the impugned order dated 16-06-2025 is passed. He would further submit that as per the rationalization instructions dated 02-08-2024 and clarification dated 08-05-2025, the women shall be given preference only to select the desired place of posting, but to declare the teachers surplus, the subject of the teacher is relevant as per clause 7-B(5) of the rationalization instructions. The relevant instructions issued by the state government have not been considered, and it has been erroneously held that the petitioner is not teaching the Hindi subject. He would also submit that in para 8 of the order, the provisions of Clause 10.7 of the rationalization instructions have not been considered in its true perspective. Therefore, the impugned order may be reviewed, and the writ petition may be reheard on the merits. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the state opposes and submits that the petitioner has filed only the mark sheet of his graduation and not of his post-graduation. He himself has relied on the rationalization 3 instructions dated 11-07-2014 in support of his case and annexed the same in his writ petition. The petitioner has filed his post-graduation mark sheet and information supplied by the District Education Officer, Korba, regarding rationalization. The writ petition is decided on the basis of the documents annexed with the writ petition. Further, from the material produced with the writ petition, the impugned order is passed and there is no illegality or irregularity and the same need not required to be reviewed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the review petition and writ petition. 5. Perusal of the order under review would show that it is a bi-party order. Grounds raised in the review petition that the documents annexed with the writ petition have been considered and an order has been passed. The petitioner has filed certain additional documents in the present review petition which was not in the writ petition. If the petitioner did not satisfy the court, there is no requirement to call for a reply from the state. The matter pertains to rationalization of the petitioner and her posting, which involved various factual aspects. Only the view to decide the definition of the subject teacher was taken from the rationalization instruction dated 11-07-2014, and the order is not based on it. It is specifically mentioned in the order that the rationalization instructions dated 11-07-2014 is not applicable in the present case. There was neither any pleading nor any document in the writ petition that the petitioner did his post-graduation in the Hindi subject. Further 4 the clause 10.7 of the rationalization instructions has been correctly applied in the case while passing the order under review. 6. At this juncture, it shall be advantageous to discuss the law with regard to the power of review. The Court may review its judgment or order, but no application for review shall be entertained except on the grounds mentioned under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. 7. Section 114 of the CPC vests power of review in the Courts and Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC provides for the scope and procedure for filing a review. The same is reproduced hereunder:- “Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC (1) Application for review of judgment- Any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred. (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important' matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (emphasis supplied) (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the 5 pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applied for the review. Explanation- The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment." 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 reported in 1997 (8) SCC 715, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-9 held as under:- 6 “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 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 reported in 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 Satyanarayan Laxminarayan v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa reported in 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", 7 which can only be corrected by an appeal if an appeal lies at all.” 13. In the present review petition, the petitioner has prayed for the recall of the order passed by this Court in WPS No. 4423/2025. The prayer made by the review petitioner appears to be misconceived. Further, the case [WPS No. 4423/2025] is decided by this Court on 16-06-2025 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 recalling of the order dated 16-06-2025 passed in WPS No. 4423/2025 by way of this review petition is not permissible, and in the opinion of this Court, no ground is made out for review. 14. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved