1 2025:CGHC:52108-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 343 of 2025 Saroj Kshemanidhi (V.I.H. Candidate ) S/o Shri Kshemanidhi Aged About 27 Years Candidate In Exam 2019 Of Assistant Professor, Roll No. 190206100316, R/o H.No. 68/2, Rawatpara, Village And Post - Bhagdola (Correct Name Is Baghadola), Tahsil - Pussore, District - Raigarh (C.G.), Mb.-8305186458, ... Petitioner versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Raipur Through The Secretary, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Raipur, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Higher Education Department, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.10.28 10:36:43 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Shri Vijay K. Deshmukh, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Shri Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 27.10.2025 1. By this present review petition, the petitioner is seeking review/recall of order dated 29.08.2025 passed by this Court in W.A. No. 586/2025. 2. The review petitioner in person seeks review of the order dated 29.08.2025 passed in W.A. No. 586/2025, which was dismissed on the ground that after being unsuccessful in the selection process, the petitioner challenged the reservation roster and he is not claiming any relief for himself; he is trying to expose the cause of public interest. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State on the other hand would support the order passed by this court in the writ appeal and prays for dismissal of the present review petition. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the review petition as also the order under review. 5. Bare perusal of the order under review, it goes to show that the petitioner in person has appeared in the matter (writ appeal), 3 though the said appeal was filed by his counsel Shri Vijay Kumar Deshmukh, Advocate. An I.A. No. 03/2025 was moved by Shri Vijay Kumar Deshmukh, Advocate for withdrawing his power from the said appeal as the appellant/review petitioner wish to argue the matter in person, which was allowed. Thereafter, after hearing the parties at length, writ appeal was dismissed by a speaking and reasoned order. Now the counsel for the petitioner Shri Vijay Kumar Deshmukh has filed this review for reviewing the order. 6. The scope of review jurisdiction is narrow and confined to errors apparent on the face of the record or if a relevant provision of law had been overlooked. In other words, it is only a patent error which is amenable to review and not an error which may have to be discovered by a process of reasoning and what may be called a virtual re-hearing of the matter. In the garb of a Review Petition, this Court cannot sit in judgment over its own order. Therefore, we are not satisfied that the Review application is maintainable. If the petitioner is aggrieved, the remedy is different. 7. 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- 4 appreciation cannot be done in exercise of said jurisdiction as that would amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is impermissible in law as has been held in catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court, such as Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 61, Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt), reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others, reported in (1996) 10 SCC 174, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, Akhilesh Yavad v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 1 and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 692). 8. Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Malleeswari v. K. Suguna & Another, 2025 INSC 1080, SLP (C) No. 12787/2025 decided on 08.09.2025, reiterated the aforesaid view. 9. As an upshot, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib