Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140976 Court No. - 5 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 268 of 2025 Applicant :- Anand Prakash Tripathi And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Misra Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Sameer Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for review applicants and Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, Advocate for respondents. 2. This is a review application filed by writ petitioners to review the judgment dated 10.07.2025 passed in Writ-A No. 12082 of 2018, whereby the writ petition was dismissed. 3. Law with regard to scope of review has been reiterated by Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer and another, 2023 INSC 963 and relevant para thereof is reproduced hereinafter: “16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that: - (i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. (ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. (iii) 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 record justifying the court to exercise its power of review. (iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected.” (v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.” (vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. (vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. (viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.” 4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of review-applicants mainly refers grounds no. J, M and N of review application and para 19 of affidavit filed in support of review application, which are reproduced hereinafter: “J. Because the finding recorded in paragraph no.13 of the aforesaid judgment that the employees appointed in the Corporation between 01.06.1972 to 19.06.1981 were absorbed w.e.f. 28.07.1982, is against the material on record, as the Absorption Rules, 1982, were only applicable to employees of the erstwhile U.P. Government Roadways, and not to the employees of the Corporation appointed after 01.06.1972.” “M. Because the finding recorded in paragraph no. 14 of the of the judgment that the process of absorption has no relation with the appointment of the petitioners which was made subsequently, is also against the material on record, as the petitioners were appointed prior to the date of absorption i.e. 28.07.1982. N. Because the finding recorded in paragraph no.15 of the judgment that "It is not under dispute that petitioners were born in a non pensionable post or cadre" is also against the material on record as, the post of Office Assistant Grade II (on which the petitioners were appointed) was a pensionable post in the erstwhile U.P. Government Roadways which continued to exist till 28.07.1982, and the pleading in that regard had been made in paragraph nos. 26, 29, 30, 31 & 32 of the writ petition and also paragraph nos.19 & 20 of the written argument filed on behalf of the petitioners.” “19) That the Hon'ble Single Judge in paragraph no. 13, 14 & 15 of the judgment and order dated 10.07.2025, has been pleased to record findings which are against the material on record / Rules, on the basis of which the petition has been dismissed.” 5. Learned Senior Advocate submits that aforesaid errors are apparent on record which may be a ground to review the above referred judgment. 6. I have considered the above submissions and carefully perused the aforesaid paragraphs and find that the submissions are bereft of any legal basis since if the submissions are accepted, the Court has to sit in appeal, which is not permissible under law as reiterated by Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal (supra). 7. It is well settled that in the garb of review, a matter cannot be re-heard on merit and above referred grounds are of such nature. I, therefore, do not find any reason to review the judgment dated 10.07.2025. 8. The review application is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 AK Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad