1 2025:CGHC:52101-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 347 of 2025 Neelima Yadav D/o Shri Kunjbihari Yadav Aged About 36 Years Occupation Sports Instructor (Daily Waged Semi Skilled), Nit Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) R/o Mahavir Nagar Lig-6 Shiv Temple Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Director National Institute Of Technology, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Registrar National Institute Of Technology, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Mhrd, New Delhi. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Deepali Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General and Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 27.10.2025 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.10.28 10:37:25 +0530 2 1. Heard Ms. Deepali Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2 and Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General for respondent No. 3 / UOI. 2. The petitioner has filed this review petition against the order dated 10.07.2025 passed by this Court in WA No. 458/2025, whereby the Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ appeal filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 herein. 3. It has been pointed out by learned counsel, appearing for the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed REVP No. 332 of 2025 (Miss Sandhya Mahadik Vs. Director National Institute of Technology & Others) vide order dated 15.10.2025, observing as follows : “10. It appears that the petitioner by presentation of this review petition seek an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on merits under the garb of the review petition, which is not permissible and tenable in law. 11. 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 (Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai1, Meera Bhanja 1 (1987) 1 SCC 61 3 (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt)2, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others3, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others4, Akhilesh Yavad v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others5 and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others6.) 12. The grounds raised by review petitioner in this review petition cannot be permitted to be raised in review petition. Even otherwise, there is no error apparent on the face of record in the impugned judgment under review warranting invocation of review jurisdiction. 13. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. No cost(s).” They further submit that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of REVP No. 332 of 2025, this petition may also be dismissed in the same terms. 4. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this petition is identical to REVP No. 332 of 2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in REVP No. 332 of 2025. 2 (1995) 1 SCC 170 3 (1996) 10 SCC 174 4 AIR 2000 SC 1650 5 (2013) 2 SCC 1 6 (2017) 4 SCC 692 4 5. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 15.10.2025 passed in REVP No. 332 of 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet