JUDGMENT : Manish Choudhury, J. 1. This review petition under Section 114 read with Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [‘CPC’ or ‘the Code’, for short] is preferred seeking review of a Judgment and Order dated 09.12.2024 passed in an intra-court appeal, Writ Appeal no. 20/2024. 2. The intra-court appeal was preferred to assail a Judgment and Order dated 29.07.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge in a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 81/2024 which the writ appellant had preferred as the writ petitioner. In the writ petition, challenge was inter alia made to an Office Letter no. ST/3-2/2000 [Pt-1]/13 dated 14.04.2022 and an Office Order no. S&T-138/2021/963 dated 20.04.2022. 3. The case of the writ petitioner-writ appellant [hereinafter also referred to as ‘the review petitioner’, at places, for easy reference], in brief, was that by an Office Order dated 16.03.2011 issued under the hand of the respondent no. 4, the petitioner came to be appointed as Night Chowkidar on a fixed pay of Rs. 6,000/- per month initially for a period of three months w.e.f. 01.04.2011 to 31.07.2011 in the establishment of the Directorate of Science & Technology, Government of Nagaland, Kohima. His engagement was extended from time to time, with the last extension up to 30.12.2022 by an Office Order dated 14.04.2021. The extension by the Office Order dated 14.04.2021 was in currency when the writ petition was preferred. When a vacancy arose in a Grade-IV post of Chowkidar in the Directorate due to retirement of one employee, though the name of the review petitioner was shortlisted, another applicant was appointed in the said vacant post by an Office Order dated 21.03.2017. 4. The review petitioner had thereafter, on 24.03.2017 submitted a Representation before the respondent no. 4 seeking grant of scale of pay to him. When the review petitioner came to learn that an incumbent holding the post of Sweeper in the Directorate would retire on 30.11.2021, the review petitioner once again submitted a Representation on 25.08.2021 to the respondent no. 4 to consider him for appointment in the vacancy to be created due to retirement on the premise that he had rendered service for more than ten years. After the concerned incumbent was released from service w.e.f. 30.11.2021, the review petitioner submitted another Representation on 03.02.2022. On 10.03.2022, the respondent no. 4 to consider him for appointment in the vacancy to be created due to retirement on the premise that he had rendered service for more than ten years. After the concerned incumbent was released from service w.e.f. 30.11.2021, the review petitioner submitted another Representation on 03.02.2022. On 10.03.2022, the respondent no. 4 submitted a list of applicants to the State Government in the Science & Technology Department to fill up the vacancy in Group-D [multi-tasking staff]. The name of the review petitioner figured at serial no. 1 in the list. But, the Science & Technology Department, Government of Nagaland conveyed administrative approval on 14.04.2022 for appointment of the respondent no. 5 in the vacant post of Sweeper, Group-D [MTS] in the Directorate. 5. After serving a legal notice, the review petitioner preferred a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 69/2022 assailing the administrative approval accorded on 14.04.2022 and to consider his regularization / appointment against the vacancy in view of his service period of more than eleven years. As the respondent no. 5 came to be appointed in the said vacant post by an Office Order dated 20.04.2022 during the pendency of the writ petition, the writ petition was withdrawn by the review petitioner on 24.08.2022 with the liberty to file afresh. It was thereafter the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 81/2022 was preferred. 6. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties and after perusal of the materials on record, dismissed the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 81/2022 by the Judgment and Order dated 29.07.2024. The learned Single Judge rejected the prayer of the review petitioner regarding grant of scale of pay from his initial appointment w.e.f. 01.04.2011. As regards the direction sought for by the review petitioner for consideration of his case for regularization/appointment in the Group-D post of MTS, the learned Single Judge also declined the prayer, after considering the petitioner’s issue in terms of two Office Memoranda, dated 22.09.2004 & dated 07.02.2016. The review petitioner’s assail made to the administrative approval accorded on 14.04.2022 and the consequent appointment of the respondent no. 5 made vide Office Order dated 20.04.2022 was, however, accepted by the learned Single Judge and those were set aside and quashed. 7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Judgment and Order dated 29.07.2024, the review petitioner had preferred the intra-court appeal, Writ Appeal no. 5 made vide Office Order dated 20.04.2022 was, however, accepted by the learned Single Judge and those were set aside and quashed. 7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Judgment and Order dated 29.07.2024, the review petitioner had preferred the intra-court appeal, Writ Appeal no. 20[K]/2025 seeking the reliefs :- [i] to set aside the Judgment and Order dated 29.07.2024 passed in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 81/2024; and [ii] to grant scale of pay to the review petitioner and to consider his case for regularization. 8. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for all the parties, the writ appeal was dismissed by the Judgment and Order dated 09.12.2024. Having regard to the nature of engagement of the review petitioner as a fixed pay contingency employee and on examination of the schemes and policies of regularization framed by the State Government in the Office Memoranda, dated 22.09.2004 & dated 17.03.2015, the Court did not find any infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge in so far as regards the claim of the review petitioner for his regularization / appointment in the Group-D post of MTS. The Court also concurred with the view of the learned Single Judge that the review petitioner had failed to make out a case for grant of scale of pay to him as granted to a regular employee. 9. We have heard Mr. I. Imti Longchar, learned counsel for the review petitioner. 10. The only ground on which the review is sought for is on the basis of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled Jaggo vs. Union of India and others, 2024 INSC 1034 . We find that in the pleadings in the instant review petition, no other ground has been urged. The learned counsel for the review petitioner has canvassed that as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo [supra] is for the benefit of persons similarly circumstanced like the review petitioner the Judgment and Order dated 09.12.2024 passed in the writ appeal, Writ Appeal no. 20[K]/2024 requires reconsideration and review and the same needs to be recalled, in order to grant the reliefs sought for by him in the writ petition. 11. Section 114 of the CPC has provided for a substantive power of review. 20[K]/2024 requires reconsideration and review and the same needs to be recalled, in order to grant the reliefs sought for by him in the writ petition. 11. Section 114 of the CPC has provided for a substantive power of review. For exercising the power of review, the procedural conditions contained in Order XLVII of the Code are to be taken into consideration. Section 114 of the Code has not prescribed any limitation on the power of the Court but such limitations have been provided for in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code. 12. Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code reads as follows :- 1. Application for review of judgment – [1] 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 which the decree was passed or order made, or any 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. [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 applies 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.] 13. [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.] 13. It shows from a reading of Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the CPC that review of a Judgment or an Order could be sought : [i] from the discovery of new and important matters or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the review petitioner; [ii] such important matter for evidence could not be produced by the applicant at the time when the decree was passed or the order was made; and [iii] on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason. By the ‘Explanation’, it has been made lucidly clear that 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. 14. It is well settled that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII, Rule 1, CPC. The High Court in its review jurisdiction in an application seeking review of an order passed in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has to confine itself within the definitive limits. Though there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it, the power of review is to be exercised only on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. The power of review may also be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found or on any analogous ground. The power of review may also be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found or on any analogous ground. But, the power of review is not to be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits, which can be examined by a court of appeal. 15. Reverting back to the grounds of review, we find that the decision in Jaggo [supra] was rendered on 20.12.2024 whereas the Judgment and Order in the intra-court appeal, Writ Appeal no. 20[K]/2024, review of which is sought for, was rendered on 09.12.2024. Though the decision in Jaggo [supra] has been rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court but the same was rendered on a date which was subsequent to the date on which the Judgment and Order was rendered in the intra-court appeal, Writ Appeal no. 20[K]/2024. Therefore, in the present case, the ‘Explanation’ to Rule 1 of Order XLVII, CPC would come to the fore making the sole ground on which the review has been sought for, is an untenable one. 16. Our above view stands fortified by the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Beghar Foundation vs. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy [Retired] and others, [2021] 3 SCC 1; Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer [1] and another, [2024] 2 SCC 362 and Government of NCT of Delhi vs. K.L. Rathi Steels Limited and others, [2024] 7 SCC 315. 17. The majority view in the Constitution Bench Judgment in Beghar Foundation [supra], also passed in a review petition, is that change in the law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review. In Sanjay Kumar Agarwal [supra], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in exactly similar line. In Government of NCT of Delhi [supra], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that no review is available upon a change or reversal of a proposition of law by a superior court or by a larger Bench overruling its earlier exposition of law whereon the judgment/order under review was based. A subsequent overruling of any decision or even its recall would not afford a ground for review within the parameters of Order XLVII, CPC. 18. A subsequent overruling of any decision or even its recall would not afford a ground for review within the parameters of Order XLVII, CPC. 18. In view of the afore-stated proposition of law, the only ground on which the review of the Judgment and Order dated 09.12.2024 has been sought for is found to be not a permissible ground for review under the law, even if it is assumed that the legal proposition expounded in Jaggo [supra] is considered to be contrary to the reasons assigned in the Judgment and Order dated 09.12.2024. 19. Therefore, this Court has no other option but to dismiss the review petition at the threshold, which is accordingly done by dismissing it.