1 2025:CGHC:5672 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 170 of 2023 1 - Karam Singh Kanwar S/o Roop Sia, Aged About 53 Years Presently Working As Assistant Grade-2, Tahsil Office Podi-Uproda, Block Podi-Uproda, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Cum Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, P.S. Rakhi, Tahsil Aarang, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Election Commission, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 4 - Deputy District Election Officer, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 5 - Shani Kumar Paikra, Presently Promoted As Niab Tahsildar, Koriya, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 30.01.2025 1. This review petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC being aggrieved by the order dated 06.12.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed in Writ Petition (S) No.947 of 2016 2 (Karam Singh Kanwar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.) whereby this Court dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner as a result of that order, the petitioner filed this instant review petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed the Writ Petition (S) No.947 of 2016 (Karam Singh Kanwar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.) for setting aside the order dated 22.03.2016 in that particular order Respondent No.5 has been promoted to the post of Naib Tahsildar and also for direction to the respondents authorities to consider petitioner for promotion to the post of Naib Tahsildar with all consequential benefits. This Court vide its order dated 06.12.2023 dismissed the said petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that this Court did not consider the essential documents, arguments and grounds of petitioner which has been filed with his rejoinder, copy of rejoinder in annexed with the petition. He further submits that while considering the case of petitioner, paragraphs 9 to 12 of the Annexure P/2 have not been considered by this Court, the above illegality which is an error prima facie on the face of record. A grave violation of a 2012 notification issued by the General Administration Department has been alleged. This notification, issued under Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribe, and Other Backward Reservation Amended Rules, 2012, mandated the use of a 100-point roster for promotions, as clearly stated in the advertisement, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be modified by allowing this review petition. He also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Board of Control for Cricket in India & Anr. Vs. Netaji Cricket Club & Ors. reported in (2005) 4 SCC 741. 3. Learned counsel for the State/respondents No.1 to 4 vehemently opposes the prayer advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the this Court had considered all grounds of the petitioner and after hearing both the parties the impugned order was passed so this petition is liable to be 3 dismissed. 4. No representation was made on behalf of Respondent No.5. 5. I have heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is clear from the impugned order that this Court in Paragraphs 9, 10, 11 & 12 considered the objection of the present petitioner and dismissed the petition on this ground that the promotion to Respondent No.5 on the said post is held to be in accordance with law as per terms and conditions of the advertisement. 7. It is well settled principle of law that a party is not entitled to seek review of any order for the purpose of rehearing and fresh decision of the case. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of M/s. Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd., v. Lt. Governor of Delhi reported in AIR 1980 SC 674 held in para 8 which is as under:- “It is 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.” 8. In view of the above, a detailed order was passed by this Court leaving no stone unturned, therefore, this Court do not find any good ground to review the impugned order dated 06.12.2023 (Annexure P/1). 9. Accordingly, this review petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Certified Copy as per rules. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE Saxena ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA