1 2025:CGHC:52863 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 322 of 2025 1 - Archana Chandrakar W/o Heera Lal Chandrakar, Aged About 41 Years Working As Head Master, Government Primary School, Kasekera, Block- Bagbahara, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Lakeshwar Kumar Chandrakar, S/o Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Aged About 43 Years Working As Teacher, Shaskiya Purv Madhyamik Shala, Lalpur, Block- Bagbahara, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 3 - Rashmi Chandrakar, W/o Omprakash Chandrakar, Aged About 39 Years Working As Assistant Teacher, Government Primary School, Nawadih, Block- Bagbahara, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 4 - Somnath Sahu, S/o Sunhar Sahu, Aged About 41 Years Working As Head Master, Government Primary School, Kasibahara, Block- Bagbahara, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 5 - Mithilesh Kumar Sahu S/o Puneet Ram Sahu, Aged About 44 Years Working As Head Master, Government Primary School, Fulwari Kala, Block- Bagbahara, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Revenue And Civil District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Revenue And Civil District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Commissioner Cum Director, Directorate Of Panchayat, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Collector, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 5 - The District Education Officer, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 6 - The Block Education Officer, Bagbahara, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 7 - The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 8 - The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bagbahara, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 9 - Arvind Kumar Dwivedi, S/o Vidyarthi Prasad Dwivedi, Aged About 51 Years Working As Head Master, Government Primary School, Khairadera, Block Bagbahara, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 10 - Harshpreet Kour Bagga, W/o Harmeet Singh Bagga, Aged About 46 Years Working As Head Master, Government Primary School, Bhadarasi, Block Bagbahara, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 11 - Nema Chandrakar W/o Late Tarendra Kumar Chandrakar, Aged About 54 2 Years Working As Head Master, Government Primary School Dargaon, Block Bagbahara, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 12 - Vinod Kumar Patel, S/o Tej Ram Patel, Aged About 46 Years Working As Head Master, Government Primary School, Nawadih, Block Bagbahara, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 13 - Smt. Veena Dwivedi, W/o Arvind Kumar Dwivedi, Aged About 46 Years Working As Head Master, Government Primary School, Sunsuniya, Block Bagbahara, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 14 - Ishwar Lal Sahu, S/o Chandan Sahu, Aged About 43 Years Working As Head Master, Government Primary School, Kalmidadar, Block- Bagbahara, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 15 - Jagdish Patel, S/o Kholbahara Patel, Aged About 55 Years Working As Head Master, Government Primary School, Manjrahi, Block- Bagbahara, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 16 - Pradeep Kumar Verma, S/o Bhagwati Prasad Verma, Aged About 45 Years Working As Head Master, Government Primary School, Bihajhar, Block- Bagbahara, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 17 - Raju Ram Thakur, S/o Shantu Ram Thakur, Aged About 46 Years Working As Head Master, Government Primary School, Lalpuriyapara, Block- Bagbahara, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Kajal Chandra, Advocate. For respective Respondents Shri Kishan Lal Sahu, Dy. Govt. Advocate and Shri R.K. Verma, Advocates. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 29.10.2025 1. The present review petition has been filed by the review petitioners seeking recalling of the order dated 13.08.2025 passed by this court in WPS No.9457 of 2025. 2. In the said writ petition there were 14 petitioners who challenged the order dated 29.04.2025 with respect to grant of Kramonnati Vetanman. On 13.08.2025 when the writ petition was called on for hearing, the counsel appearing for petitioners had withdrawn the writ petition without reserving any liberty. Thereafter, out of 14 petitioners of the original writ petition, 5 petitioners i.e. petitioners No.3,7,11,12 & 14 have filed the present review petition praying for review of the order 3 dated 13.08.2025 for hearing the matter afresh or in alternative to grant liberty to present petitioners to file fresh petition or to make fresh representation before the authorities concerned. 3. Since, after considering all the aspect of the matter, the counsel for the petitioners in the writ petition, prayer for withdrawal of the writ petition without reserving any right and no order has been passed on its merits, the order dated 13.08.2025 cannot be reviewed as there is no error apparent on the face of record. By way of present review petition, the review petitioners want to get the entire petition to be heard on merits which is not permissible under the review jurisdiction. 4. It is well settled law that fresh grounds and plea cannot be permitted to be raised in the course of review jurisdiction. Moreover, a perusal of order passed in writ petition would reflect that writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on the prayer made by the counsel for petitioners himself and as such it cannot be said that there was any error apparent on the face of record. Review jurisdiction is not an Appeal in disguise. It does not permit re-hearing of matter on merits. Re-appreciation of the facts of the case and passing of fresh order by exercising the review petition is not permissible under law. It is well settled principles of law that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 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. The jurisdiction under review does not permit an erroneous decision to be reheard and 4 corrected. The mistake apparent on record means that the mistake which is self evident, needs no search and stares at its face. 5. Principle of law to entertain review petition is well settled in catena of decisions one of those being 2012(7)SCC 200 (Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited vs. Mawasi and Others). Similar view has also been taken by the Supreme Court in cases of Smt. Meera Bhanja vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary1, Lily Thomas, etc. vs. Union of India and others2, Ajit Kumar Rath vs. State of Orissa and others3, Government of T.N. and others vs. M. Ananchu Asari and others4 and Kerla State Electricity Board vs. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd. and others5. 6. Thus, applying the above well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, there is no ground available for review of the order dated 13.08.2025. However, considering the grievance of the present review petitioners, they are at liberty to file fresh petition, if so advised, and in that eventuality the order dated 13.08.2025 passed in WPS No. 9457 of 2025 shall not come in their way. 7. As a result and in view of the foregoing, this review application is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder 1 AIR 1995 SC 455 2 AIR 2000 SC 1650 3 AIR 2000 SC 85 4 2005 (2) SCC 332 5 2005 (6) SCC 651