1 2025:CGHC:53861 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 331 of 2025 * - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Additional Secretary, Department Of Law And Legislative Affairs Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Review Petitioner/Applicant Versus 1 - Sunil Kumar Sewte S/o Shree Sammanlal Sewte Aged About 47 Years R/o Gali No. 2, Jabdapara, New Sarkanda Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Advocate General Chhattisgarh Through The Under Secretary Office Of The Advocate General, High Court Of Chhattisgarh At Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Madan Singh Thakur S/o Netram Thakur Aged About 42 Years Working As Asst. Grade III, Office Of Advocate General, High Court Of Chhattisgarh At Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Karuna Tiwari W/o Shri Amit Tiwari Aged About 47 Years Presently Working As Asstt. Grade III, Office Of Advocate General, High Court Of Chhattisgarh At Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Sanjay Ekka S/o Shri Albert Ekka Aged About 44 Years Asst. Grade III, Department Of Legislative Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Girish Prasad Yadu S/o Shri Ambika Prasad Yadu Aged About 46 Years Asst. Grade III, Department Of Legislative Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Dinesh Patel S/o Late Shri Kaliram Patel Aged About 48 Years Asstt. Grade III, Department Of Legislative Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents And REVP No. 330 of 2025 * - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Pramukh Sachiv Vidhi Avam Vidhayi Karya Vibhag Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) --- Review Petitioner/Applicant Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.11.07 10:55:56 +0530 2 Versus 1 - Smt. Barkha Sharma W/o Shree Arun Kumar Sharma Aged About 49 Years R/o Mahadhivakta Karyalaya, Chhattisgarh Ucha Nyayalaya Prangan Bodri Bilaspur, (C.G.). Mo. No. 7000051242 2 - The Advocate General Chhattisgarh Through Under Secretary Office Of The Advocate General, High Court Of Chhattisgarh At Bilaspur, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Sanjay Ekka S/o Shri Albert Ekka Aged About 44 Years Assistant Grade- III, R/o Department Of Law Legislative Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Girish Prasad Yadu S/o Shri Ambika Prasad Yadu Aged About 46 Years Assistant Grade-III R/o Department Of Law Legislative Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Dinesh Patel S/o Late Shri Kaliram Patel Aged About 48 Years Assistant Grade-III, R/o Department Of Law Legislative Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondents And REVP No. 349 of 2025 * - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Additional Secretary, Department Of Law And Legislative Affairs, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---Review Petitioner/Applicant Versus 1 - Jagdish Prasad Rawat S/o Shri Ranjan Lal Rawat Aged About 52 Years Presently Working As Peon In The Office Of Advocate General, High Court Of Chhattisgarh At Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Advocate General Chhattisgarh, Through The Under Secretary, Office Of Advocate General, High Court Of Chhattisgarh At Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Madan Singh Thakur S/o Netram Thakur Aged About 42 Years Presently Working As Asstt. Grade-III, Office Of Advocate General High Court Of Chhattisgarh At Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Karuna Tiwari W/o Shri Amit Tiwari Aged About 47 Years Presently Working As Asst. Grage-III, Office Of Advocate General, High Court Of Chhattisgarh At Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Sanjay Ekka S/o Shri Albert Ekka, Aged About 44 Years Presently Working As Assistant Grade-III, Department Of Legislative Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 6 - Girish Kumar Yadu S/o Shri Ambika Prasad Yadu Aged About 46 Years Presently Working As Assistant Grade-III, Department Of Legislative Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 7 - Dinesh Patel S/o Late Shri Kaliram Patel Aged About 48 Years Presently Working As Assistant Grade-III, Department Of Legislative Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents And REVP No. 348 of 2025 * - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Law And Legislative Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Review Petitioner/Applicant Versus 1 - Sooraj Bhargav S/o Shri Bhagwat Prasad Bhargav Aged About 48 Years Presently Working As Peon In The Office Of Advocate General High Court Of Chhattisgarh At Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Hitendra Kumar Yadav S/o Late Shri Hemant Kumar Yadav Aged About 50 Years Presently Working As Peon In The Office Of Advocate General High Court Of Chhattisgarh At Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Omprakash Kesharwani S/o Shri R.K. Kesharwani Aged About 44 Years Presently Working As Peon In The Office Of Advocate General High Court Of Chhattisgarh At Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Dinesh Kumar Tandon S/o Shri Bhanupratap Tandon Aged About 44 Years Presently Working As Peon In The Office Of Advocate General High Court Of Chhattisgarh At Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Ram Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Runu Ram Yadav Aged About 47 Years Presently Working As Peon In The Office Of Advocate General High Court Of Chhattisgarh At Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. K. Mohini Raj W/o Shri K. Nehemiah Raj Presently Working As Peon In The Office Of Advocate General High Court Of Chhattisgarh At Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 7 - The Advocate General Chhattisgarh Through The Under Secretary Office Of The Advocate General, High Court Of Chhattisgarh At Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Sanjay Ekka S/o Shri Albert Ekka Aged About 44 Years Assistant Grade- III, Department Of Legislative Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 9 - Girish Kumar Yadu S/o Shri Ambika Prasad Yadu Aged About 46 Years Assistant Grade-III, Department Of Legislative Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 10 - Dinesh Patel S/o Late Shri Kaliram Patel Aged About 48 Years Assistant Grade-III, Department Of Legislative Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents 4 For Review Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akhil Kumar Samantray, Advocate For Respective Respondents : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shashwat Rai, Advocate; Mr. Rish Rahul Soni, Advocate; Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate; Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Deputy Government Advocate and Mr. Triveni Shankar Sahu, Panel Lawyer and Mr. Vibhor Govardhan, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 04/11/2025 1. These review petitions have been filed by the State for modification/ recall of common order passed in WPS No. 2416 of 2022; WPS No. 4427 of 2024; WPS No. 3550 of 2022 and WPS No. 3800 of 2022, whereby the State was directed to re-consider the claims of the private respondents for promotion to Class-III posts in accordance with Chhattisgarh Law and Legislative Affairs Department (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983 and further direction was issued to reckon their seniority with effect from 25.03.2022, when their juniors were promoted. 2. Mr. Akhil Kumar Samantray, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner would vehemently argue that promotion from Class-IV to Assistant Grade-III is carried out roster-wise, if there are 04 vacancies then the first 03 vacancies are to be filled up by direct recruitment and 04th vacancy is to be filled up by promotion according to reservation roster. He would further submit that according to Rule10 of the General Conditions of Service Rules 1961, when service consists of two or more distinct branches or groups of posts and there is no 5 provision to transfer the services of the employees from one branch to another branch, the separate gradation list would be maintained for each branch. Mr. Samantray would contend that though a combined gradation list was published on 09.02.2022, but later on, it was rectified and separated pursuant to executive instructions issued by the State. He would contend that there are 41 sanctioned posts of Assistant Grade-III and out of 41 posts 25% posts can be filled up by way of promotion. He would submit that out of 10 posts, 09 posts have already been occupied by Class-IV employees and only one post is left. He would further submit that in absence of sanctioned strength and vacancy, it would be very difficult for State to consider claims of 09 persons for promotion to Class-III posts. He would submit that the claims of the employees working with Office of Advocate General cannot be considered in absence of sanctioned strength and vacancy. Thus, he would pray for review or modification of order dated 01/08/2025 upto that extent. 3. On the other hand, Ms. Sharmila Singhai, learned Senior Advocate leading the arguments would submit that this issue was not raised at the time of hearing of writ petitions either by State or by the Office of Advocate General. She would submit that the promotion quota was enhanced to 25% pursuant to order passed in WPS No. 2760/2015 in WPS No. 3360/2015 and there was no direction or indication for bifurcation of the posts between the Office of Advocate General and the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs. She would contend that juniors to the Class IV employees working with the office of Advocate General have already been promoted to Class-III posts and, therefore, this Court while disposing of the writ petitions directed the State to 6 consider the claims of the employees of Office of Advocate General. The learned Senior Counsel would further argue that there is no error apparent on the face of record, therefore, the review petitions filed by the State are misconceived. She would pray that the review petitions deserve to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. A detailed order was passed in all writ petitions mentioned above in presence of respective parties. It is not a case where no one appeared for State of Chhattisgarh or Office of Advocate General at the time of hearing of writ petitions, rather they were duly represented and returns were also filed on their behalf. This Court considered the fact that juniors to the private respondents were considered for promotion to the posts of Assistant Grade-III and their claims for promotion were not considered in the light of executive instructions issued by the State dehors the Service Rules. It is well settled principle of law that executive instructions/circulars cannot override statutory service rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. This Court while disposing of those writ petitions directed the State to consider the claims of the private respondents for promotion to the posts of Assistant Grade-III within period of 60 days granting notional seniority with effect from 25.03.2022, when juniors to the private respondents were promoted. 6. Section 114 of the CPC vests power of review in Courts and Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC provides for the scope and procedure for filing a review. The same is reproduced hereunder:- “Order 47 Rule 1 CPC: 7 "1. Application for review of judgment- Any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred. (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important' matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (emphasis supplied) (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applied for the review. Explanation: The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment." 7. 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:- 9. “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.” 8 8. In the matter of Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra, 2019 (20) SCC 753, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 15.1 held that:- 15.1. In Inderchand Jain it was observed in paras 10, 11 and 33 as under: (SCC pp. 669 & 675) "10. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order. 11. Review is not appeal in disguise. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India this Court held: (SCC p. 251, para 56) 56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise." 33. The High Court had rightly noticed the review jurisdiction of the court, which is as under: "The law on the subject exercise of power of review, as propounded by the Apex Court and various other High Courts may be summarised as hereunder: (i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. (ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. (iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. (iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact of law by a court or even an advocate. (v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit. In our opinion, the principles of law enumerated by it, in 9 the facts of this case, have wrongly been applied. 9. 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.” 10. 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.” 11. Taking into consideration the facts discussed-above; the laws laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and further the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, the review petitioners cannot be permitted to reagitate or reargue the matter. The learned Counsel appearing for review petitioner could not highlight any error of mistake apparent on face of record. This Court does not sit in appeal to hear the matter against its own order and further rehearing of matter is not permissible. 12. Consequently, these review petitions fail and are hereby dismissed subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to High Court Legal Aid Committee, Bilaspur. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti