1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 377 of 2025 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector District Koriya (Baikunthpur) C.G. 3 - The Collector District Manendragarh- Chirmiri- Bharatpur (C.G.) 4 - The Additional Collector And Nodal Officer Sanyukta Bharti Abhiyan, Joint Recruitment Programmed- 2012, District Koriya (Baikunthpur) C.G. 5 - The District Level Selectiion Committee Of Joint Recruitment Programmed- 2012 Through The Additional Collector And Nodal Officer, Koriya (Baikunthpur) District Koriya (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ritesh Kumar Dwivedi S/o Kaushaldish Dwivedi Aged About 38 Years R/o Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh Roll No. 02395 2 - Smt. Rita Yadav W/o Shri Krishna Yadav Aged About 42 Years R/o Old Basti, Behind Vimal Talkies, Manendragarh, P.S. Manendragarh, District Koriya (Baikunthpur) C.G. 3 - Mubarak Ali S/o Shri Mohd. Ali Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Karahiyakhand, Post Girzapur, P.S. Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya (Baikunthpur) Chhattisgarh 4 - Ranjeet Kumar Sinha S/o Shri Girish Prasad Sinha Aged About 43 Years R/o Near Primary School, Sattipara, Ambikapur, District Surguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh 5 - Bisun Dev Rajwade S/o Shri Radheshyam Aged About 32 Years R/o Ghughra Katgodi, Sonhat, Baikunthpur, District Koriya (Baikunthpur) Chhattisgarh 6 - Rajesh Sahu S/o Shri Ram Kripal Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o Village 2 Sonhat, Post Sonhat, Baikunthpur, P.S. Sonhat, District Koriya (Baikunthpur) Chhattisgarh 7 - Shyam Kumar S/o Shri Bhagwat Prasad Aged About 39 Years R/o Domanheel, Chirmiri, Post Sonawani, P.S. Chirmiri, District Koriya (C.G.) 8 - Rajesh Sonkar S/o Shri Gopi Sonkar Aged About 36 Years R/o Sonkar Mohalla, Bada Bazar Chirmiri, District Koriya (Baikunthpur) Chhattisgarh 9 - Raghunandan Prasad Kurrey S/o Shri Laxaman Prasad Kurrey Aged About 41 Years R/o Haldiwadi Chirmiri, P.S. Chirmiri, District Koriya (Baikunthpur) Chhattisgarh 10 - K. Santosh Rao S/o Shri K. Narayan Swami Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No. 16, Vilage Chanwaridand P.S. Manendragarh District Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur C.G. 11 - Abhishek Pandey S/o Shri Lalit Kumar Pandey Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward No. 21, Near Water Tank, P.S. Manendragarh District Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur (C.G.) 12 - Akshay Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri Brijmohan Sahu, Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Lodari Post Barbaspur P.S. Manendragarh District Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Review Petitioners/State : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Additional A.G. along with Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Additional A.G. along with Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. For respondents : Mr. CJK Rao, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 14.11.2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. The State has filed this review petition for modification/recall of order passed in WPS No.7658 of 2024, interalia, on the ground that the order dated 11.12.2024 in writ petition was passed without considering the relevant documents and material particularly the report of the committee. It is also pleaded that an advertisement was issued for 3 total 526 posts and all have already been filled up in the year 2013-14 and there is no vacancy. 3. The next ground taken by the State is that the Committee in its inquiry report opined that 37 candidates were resorted to unfair means and therefore, their candidatures were rejected. 4. Mr. Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State would argue that in earlier round of litigation i.e. WPS No.5130 of 2014, vide order dated 01.07.2024, an inquiry report dated 04.02.2013 submitted by the Committee was quashed and the authorities were directed to consider the candidature of the private respondents for appointment to the post of Peon/Chowkidar. He would contend that at present, posts are not vacant, therefore, the order passed in WPS No.7658 of 2024 requires modification whereby, respondent No.1 was directed to take appropriate decision on representation of the private respondents within a period of 30 days. 5. Mr. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that while disposing of WPS No.7658 of 2024, this Court simply directed the State to decide representation(s) of the private respondents after affording due opportunity of hearing. He would contend that there is no error or mistake apparent on the face of record, therefore, the review petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7. In WPS No.5130 of 2014, following order was passed : 4 14.Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, in the opinion of this Court, the decision taken by the authorities and the inquiry report dated 04.02.2013 submitted by the committee pursuant to the order passed in WPS No. 514 of 2013 and other connected matters, challenged in WPS No. 5130 of 2014, is hereby quashed. The authorities are directed to consider the petitioners' candidature for appointment to the posts of Peon / Chowkidar, as the case may be. The bifurcation of the Districts Koriya and Manendragarh- Chirmiri-Bharatpur (M.C.B.) will not affect the petitioners' rights. It is expected that the concerned authority shall complete the entire process preferably within a period of 120 days from the date of presentation of a copy of this order.” 8. While disposing of the WPS No.7658 of 2024, a report submitted by the Committee dated 25.10.2024 was quashed and direction was issued to the State to decide the representations preferred by the respondents herein within a period of 30 days. It appears that no legal issue was decided. 9. In the matter of M/s Northern India (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governer of Delhi, 1980 (2) SCC 167, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “A plea for review, unless the first judicial view is manifestly distorted, is like asking for the moon. A forensic defeat cannot be avenged by an invitation to have a second look, hopeful of discovery of flaws and reversal of result. A review in counsel's mentation cannot repair the verdict once given. So the law laid down must rest in peace.” 10.In the matter of Sajjan Singh and others vs. State of Rajasthan and others [AIR 1965 SC 845], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “the parties are not entitled to seek review of the judgment delivered by this Court merely for purpose for review and fresh decision of the case. The normal principle that judgments pronounced by this Court would be final, cannot be ignored and unless considerations of a substantial 5 and compelling character make it necessary to do so.” 11. In the matter of Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others, 1997 (8) SCC 715, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-9 held as under:- “Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. 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 review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise.” 12. In the matter of M/S Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd v. Assam State Electricity Board, 2020 (2) SCC 677, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the petition and held that “The scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and decided.” 13. In the matter of Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy, (2021) 3 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “even the change in law of or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.” 14. In the matter of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa, AIR 1960 SC 137, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-8 held as under:- “8. The main question that arises for our consideration in this appeal by special leave 6 granted by this Court is whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record so as to enable the superior court to call for the records and quash the order by a writ of certiorari or whether the error, if any, was "a mere error not so apparent on the face of the record", which can only be corrected by an appeal if an appeal lies at all.” 15. Initially, order was passed in WPS No.5130 of 2014, whereby inquiry report dated 04.02.2013 was quashed and concerned authorities were directed to consider the claim of the petitioners of that case for appointment to the post of Peon/Chowkidar within 120 days. The review petitioners failed to challenge said order and have filed review petition for modification of order passed in subsequent petition i.e. WPS No.7658 of 2024, whereby, a simple direction was issued to decide representation within 30 days. The grounds raised in review petition were available and within knowledge of the review petitioners when WPS No.7658 of 2024 was heard but these grounds were not raised for the reasons best known to them. Further, the review petitioners failed to point out any mistake or error apparent on face of record rather they want rehearing of writ petition, which is not permissible under the law. 16. Taking into consideration the facts of the case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in above-referred cases, in my opinion, no case is made out for review of order dated 11.12.2024 passed in WPS No.7658 of 2024, consequently, this review petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha