1 2025:CGHC:48232-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 298 of 2025 1 - Smt. Snigdha Gwal (In Person) W/o Manish G. Yadav Aged About 38 Years Occupation Lecturer (Biology) Government Higher Secondary School Urga District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Public Instruction Directorate Chhattisgarh First Floor, C- Block Indiravati Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Deputy Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Chhattisgarh First Floor, C- Block Indiravati Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.09.19 18:17:18 +0530 2 4 - Joint Director Education Department Bilaspur Division Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Collector Korba, District Korba (C.G.) 6 - Secretary District Rationalization Committee (District Education Officer) Korba District Korba (C.G.) 7 - Secretary Block Rationalization Committee Block Education Officer Korba District Korba (C.G.) 8 - Principal Government Higher Secondary School Urga District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Smt. Snigdha Gwal, Petitioner in person. For Respondent(s) : Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 19.09.2025 1. By this present review petition, the petitioner is seeking review/recall of order dated 22.08.2025 passed by this Court in W.A. No. 426/2025. 3 2. The review petitioner in person seeks review of the order dated 22.08.2025 passed in W.A. No. 426/2025, which was dismissed on the ground that this Court dismissed the writ appeal on the basis of Rule 7 of the Rationalization Policy but the said rule 7 relates to the employees holding the post of Assistant Teacher, whereas in the present case the petitioner is holding the post of Lecturer which is governed by the Rule 6(6) of the Rationalization Policy. 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 writ appeal preferred on behalf of the appellant/writ petitioner through her counsel was duly heard and stood dismissed by this Court vide order dated 22.08.2025 in W.A. No. 626 of 2025. The petitioner has now appeared in person and seeks to re-argue the matter afresh by way of review petition. Such a course is impermissible in law, as review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise. 4 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 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. 5 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. Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Malleeswari v. K. Suguna & Another, 2025 INSC 1080, SLP (C) No. 12787/2025 decided on 08.09.2025, reiterated the aforesaid view. 9. As an upshot, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib