1 2026:CGHC:14072-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR REVP No. 21 of 2026 1 - Ashish Sahu S/o Shri Sukrit Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Near Rise Mill, Kasdol, Balod - Bazar, District - Baloda-Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Yajaya Kumar Krishna S/o Paharuram Bareth Aged About 37 Years R/o House No. 199, Rishdi, Tripathi Mohalla, Ward No. 24, Korba, District - Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Law And Justice, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The District And Session Judge Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Mahesh Kumar S/o Hariram Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o House No. 08 Ward No. 11 Village Tilaibhat Kawardha, District - Kawardha (C.G.) 4. Anjali Morya D/o Rajnarayan Morya Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 33, Shakar Baba Tikrapara, Mannuchowk, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. Bharat Patel S/o Digamber Patel Aged About 33 Years R/o House No. 1 / 89 Street No. 03, Near Rambagh Rajiv Nagar Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) 6. Ashok Kumar Patel S/o Ramlal Patel Aged About 31 Years R/o House No. 36 Ward No. 04, Jamnipali Korba, District - Korba (C.G.) 7. Anjali Kashyap D/o Ashok Kumar Kashyap Aged About 36 Years R/o Near Mayur Club, New Shiv Temple, Pandari, Raipur, District - 2 Raipur (C.G.) 8. Savitri Sahu S/o Pritam Das Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o House No. 144, Ward No. 07, Gudichowk, Parastrai, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 9. Deepak Kumar S/o Gannulal Dewangan Aged About 35 Years R/o House No. 23, Sethpara Hadgahan, Arjunda, District - Drug (C.G.) 10. Roshan Lal Sinha S/o Manohar Lal Sinha Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Chiddo, Post Chiddo, Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 11. Hrishikesh Patel S/o Shri Ramesh Kumar Patel Aged About 26 Years R/o House No. 165, Bazarpara, Village And Post Kendua, Saraipali, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 12. Manish Yadav S/o Jawahar Lal Yadav Aged About 27 Years R/o House No. 01 Ward No. 04 Shanti Nagar, Sakri, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 13. Sawati Dewangan S/o Satyanarayan Dewangan Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Akhara Bhata Shakti, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 14. Durgesh Kumar S/o Biselal Yadu Aged About 31 Years R/o 115 Khuteri Mandir Hasaud, Post Godi, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 15. Kunti Dewangan S/o Bhuneshwar Dewangan Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Janjgiri, Post Janjgiri, Adarsh Nagar Sai Niwas Road, Near Patwari Office, Charoda, District - Durg (C.G.) 16.Pawan Kumar Manikpuri S/o Ratan Das Manikpuri Aged About 35 Years R/o Dr. Sharma Street Tataline Kohka, Supela Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) 17. Namrta Namdev D/o Late Narayan Prasad Namdev Aged About 36 Years R/o Ward No. 6/33, Tilak Nagar Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 18. Minakshi Kamalvanshi D/o Kamesh Kumar Aged About 26 Years R/o Gopiya Para Purani Basti Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 19. Bundeshwari Maitry D/o Jivan Lal Maitriy Aged About 33 Years R/o M. D. 765 Ward No. 14, Mother Teresha, Dipika Colony Dipka, Korba, District - Korba (C.G.) 20. Haldhar Sinha S/o Satrughan Sinha Aged About 28 Years R/o House No. 2, Aabadipara, Satmara Ward No. 1, Belaudi, Balod, District - 3 Balod (C.G.) 21. Mahesh Kumar S/o Hariram Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o House No. 72 Ward No. 15 Village Tilaibhat Kawardha, District - Kawardha (C.G.) ---- Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners : Mr. Ravikar Patel, Advocate For State-Respondent : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. GA ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board Per Arvind Kumar Verma, J. 24.03.2026 1. Heard Mr. Ravikar Patel, learned counsel for the Petitioners. Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. GA for the State-respondent. 2. The present case has been listed today in view of the order passed in MCC No.199 of 2026. 3. The petitioners have been filed this review petition under Rule 90 read with Rule 87 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007 against the order dated 28.04.2025 passed by this Court in WA No.272 of 2025. 4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the respondent No. 2 published an advertisement for appointment of Stenographer, Steno Typist, and Assistant Grade III on 28.06.2023 and called applications in this respect from the candidates. As per 4 the advertisement, the last date for submission of application form was 13.07.2023. The petitioners participated in the aforesaid proceeding and preliminary Exam was held on 22.10.2023. The respondent No. 2 prepared a separate list of candidates for skill test of Un-reserved, OBC, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed writ petition being WPS No. 9677 of 2023 with a prayer that respondent No.2 be kindly directed to prepare a fresh list for skill test according to the reservation roster and as per law. The petitioners be also directed to provide opportunity for skill test in the aforesaid recruitment examination. It was also the case of the petitioners that list for Unreserved candidates highest marks secured by the candidates is 45 and lowest is 29 whereas in OBC category highest marks is 46 and lowest is 39. The petitioners have scored more than 29 marks which is higher than the lowest marks of the Unreserved Category still they were not called for skill test by applying wrong reservation roster, consequently, the lower scored candidates were called for skill test. It has been further contended that in other District Court recruitment drive the appointing authority has prepared the list of candidates as per reservation roster and persons of OBC category who have secured higher marks than unreserved candidates were called for skill test, as such a discriminative and illegal procedure has been 5 adopted by respondent No. 2. It has been further submitted that the petitioners raised objection before the authority but respondent No.02 has not redressed the grievance of petitioners in this regard. On the above factual foundations the petitioners have prayed for issuance of direction for preparation of list of candidates as per reservation rules. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 21.03.2025. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Writ Appeal before the Division Bench of this Court and praying the said aside the order of Single Judge, but the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ appeal vide order dated 28/04/2025 and expressed his view that "We are of the considered opinion the learned single judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court". Hence, this review petition. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by the parties. 8. 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: 6 "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. 7 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. 9. In the matter of Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others, reported in 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.” 8 10. The petitioners have sought rehearing of the writ petition by way of this review petition which is not permissible. Further, there is no error of law apparent on the face of the record, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that no ground is made out for review. 11. Accordingly, the instant review petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Vasant