1 2025:CGHC:44837-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 262 of 2025 1 - Jugal Kishore Uraon S/o Late Shri Munku Uraon Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Balpur, Tahsil- Dabhra, District- Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Higher Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Under Secretary Higher Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Principal Government College Dabhra, Tahsil - Dabhra, District - Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.09.04 10:39:59 +0530 2 4 - Principal Government College, Chandrapur, District - Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Devesh G. Kela, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Shri Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 03.09.2025 1. By this present review petition, the petitioner is seeking review/recall of order dated 26.06.2025 passed by this Court in W.A. No. 405/2025 and restore the order passed in WPS No. 3718/2022 dated 14.06.2022. 2. The review petitioner seeks review of the order dated 26.06.2025 passed in W.A. No. 405/2025 on the ground that the learned Single Judge after appreciating the entire facts in its true perspective has rightly allowed the writ petition of the petitioner and subsequently the review petition no. 03/2023 preferred by the State has also been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 10.09.2024. According to the 3 review petitioner while allowing the writ appeal filed by the State this Court has not considered the aforesaid fact and even the learned State counsel has not brought the factual aspects of the matter before this Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State on the other hand would support the order passed by this court in the writ appeal and prays for dismissal of the present review petition. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the review petition as also the order under review. 5. Bare perusal of the order under review, it is manifest that the same has been passed in presence of the counsel for the parties by considering all the facts and grounds raised by the parties. The petitioner failed to establish any manifest error on the face of the order under review. 6. The scope of review jurisdiction is narrow and confined to errors apparent on the face of the record or if a relevant provision of law had been overlooked. In other words, it is only a patent error which is amenable to review and not an error which may have to be discovered by a process of reasoning and what may be called a virtual re-hearing of the matter. In the garb of a Review Petition, this Court cannot sit in 4 judgment over its own order. Therefore, we are not satisfied that the Review application is maintainable. If the petitioner is aggrieved, the remedy is different. 7. It is well settled that scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and only an error apparent on face of record can be 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 as has been held in catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court, such as Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 61, Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt), reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others, reported in (1996) 10 SCC 174, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, Akhilesh Yavad v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 1 and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 692). 8. The ground raised by the review petitioner in this review petition cannot be permitted to be raised in review petition. 5 Even otherwise, there is no error apparent on the face of record in the order under review warranting invocation of review jurisdiction. 9. As an upshot, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib