JUDGMENT : SHAMIMA JAHAN, J. Heard Mr. D Mazumdar, learned Senior State Counsel assisted by Ms. S. Nath for the review petitioner and Mr D Das, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr S Das, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 2. This application was filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC, 1908, seeking review of the order dated 21.07.2014, passed in WP(C) No. 5072/2007. Before going into the facts narrated in the review petition as well as the law, this Court would like to narrate the detail facts involved in the said case. FACTS: 3. It is the case of the petitioners in WP(C) No. 5066 of 2016 that an advertisement was issued on 18.09.1998, calling for applications from the intending candidates, who had passed the Assam Survey Training Examination, for filling up the post of Mandals, lying vacant in the amalgamated establishment of the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang. In pursuance to the said advertisement, the selection process started and the select list of 38 candidates was prepared on 19.06.1999, wherein the petitioners appeared at Serial No. 29, 31 to 35. It is stated by the learned counsels that the candidates appearing at Serial No. 32 as well as 35 had expired, however, pursuant to the said select list, 23 candidates were appointed and the petitioners were not appointed in the said post. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed a writ petition being WP(C) No. 9294 of 2004 and the said case was disposed of in the motion stage itself on the consent of the learned counsel for all the parties vide order dated 17.12.2004. During the proceeding the learned counsel for the State submitted that the petitioners could not be appointed due to a ban imposed for appointments and that they will be appointed once the ban is over and on the said submission, this Court gave a direction to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue Department, to appoint the petitioners in accordance with law and the said writ petition was disposed of. 4. 4. Against the said order dated 17.12.2004, a review application was filed by the petitioner, praying therein that the appointing authority is not the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue Department, but the direction is required to be made to the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, Mangaldoi, to appoint the petitioners in the vacant post of Mandal. The petitioners filed a review application, since they came to know about the said fact after the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of. In view of the said submissions, this Court had reviewed the order and directed the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang District, to appoint the petitioners in the vacant post of Mandal, after getting approval from the Government and also immediately after the ban of appointment gets lifted. The said review application was disposed of on 31.05.2005. 5. Pursuant to the said order, an office order was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, Mangaldoi, on 21st of December, 2005, by which the petitioners were appointed. It was stipulated in the said order that the petitioners Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 were appointed against the existing vacancy and the petitioner No. 2 was appointed in place of an employee, who had retired. The said order also reflects that appointments were made in pursuance to the approval of the Governor of Assam dated 09.12.2005, with further stipulation that the petitioners were appointed as they appeared in the select list prepared in the year 1999. 6. In the meantime, i.e., on 25th of January, 2005, the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance Department, by a communication to the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, and other authorities had informed that a new Pension Scheme has been formulated by introducing a Contributory Pension Scheme applicable to the future State Government Employees, who will be in the service of the State Government on or after 1st of February, 2005, and that henceforth, a New Pension Rule will be mentioned both in the advertisement as well as in the appointment letters and also that the Government Servants, who are appointed on or after 1st of February, 2005, have to give an undertaking that they will be governed by the New Pension Scheme. 7. 7. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner had filed a writ petition being WP(C) No. 5072 of 2007, praying for a direction that although they were appointed after the New Pension Scheme came into force, but they having been selected in view of the select list of 1999, they should be given the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme, i.e., Assam Service (Pension) Rules, 1969. During the proceeding of the writ petition, i.e., WP(C) No. 5072/2007, this Court, vide order dated21.07.2014,disposed of the writ petition, and passed an order that 23 candidates were appointed from the select list of 1999 and the rest of them, i.e., the petitioners were not appointed, despite there being vacancies. It was also observed in the said order that the Deputy Commissioner had written a letter to the Commissioner to appoint the rest of the persons of the select list, but since the same was not done, a writ petition, as stated above, was filed and the appointments were finally made on 21.12.2005. This Court, while passing the said order, had relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar -Vs- Mithilesh Kumar , reported in (2010) 13 SCC 467 , wherein it was held that norms or rules which existed on the date when the selection process started would apply to the entire selection process, unless an amended rule or norms provides for its retrospective operation. This Court, therefore, held that since New Pension Rule had come into effect from 1st of February, 2005, and the select list was published on 19.06.1999, the petitioner would be covered by the Old Pension Scheme, more so, their appointments were simply delayed, but were given from the same select list. 8. Thereafter, the petitioners made representations before the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, Mangaldoi, bringing into the notice of the said authority about the said judgment. Thereafter, on 22nd of May, 2016, the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, Mangaldoi, by a communication to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, had written that since the appointment of the petitioners was from the same select list of 1999 and also due to the fact that this Court had given relief to the petitioners, the said Deputy Commissioner requested the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, to communicate instructions so that the representations of the petitioners can be disposed of at the earliest. Thereafter, a number of communications went on between the authorities concerned and finally, a comprehensive note was put up by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, Mangaldoi, stating the same facts and further asked for the views of Pension and Public Grievance (P & PG) Department, for awarding pension to the petitioners under the Old Pension Scheme. Thereafter, a committee was constituted to look into the grievances and in the meantime, the petitioners were busy with their work assigned to them. 9. It is the order dated 21.07.2014, which is subjected to review by filing a review application being Review Petition No. 156 of 2017, before this Court, by the State of Assam. SUBMISSIONS: 10. The main grounds for review as submitted by the learned Senior State Counsel, Mr Mazumdar is that the appointment of the petitioners were not given due to non-availability of vacancies and he relied upon a letter dated 9 of March, 2005, which was written by the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue Department, Dispur, in which it was stated that although 38 candidates were selected for appointment to the post of Mandals as per the select list of 1999, only 23 candidates were appointed and the other selected candidates could not be appointed by that time due to non-availability of adequate number of vacancies and also due to expiry of the select list. It was further stated thatpresently, i.e., on 9th of March, 2005, there are 61 numbers of post of Mandal, lying vacant in the amalgamated establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, Mangaldoi, and further, a prayer was made that due to work pressure, Government approval was sought, for appointment of the petitioners in the vacant posts of Mandal in compliance with the review order dated 31.01.2005, passed by this Court. 11. The learned counsel for the State of Assam, as such, submits that since the appointment could not be made due to non-availability of vacancies and the appointments were made after the New Pension Rules have come into force, the petitioners would be governed by the New Pension Rules and the same being an error apparent on the face of the record, this review needs to be allowed. He further stated that by virtue of the New Pension Scheme, an undertaking was sought for from the new incumbents and the same was required to be given by the said incumbents as per the new Pension Scheme. He further stated that this Court in the order dated 21.07.2014, had referred to a decision of Mithilesh Kumar (supra), which according to the learned counsel is inapplicable in the present facts and circumstances, inasmuch, as, he stated that the norms and rules relatable to the recruitment of the candidates will remain the same throughout the selection process and any change in the recruitment rules may not affect the selection process, which was undertaken and completed, but in this case, he stated that it is not the case of recruitment rules, but entitlement of the pension by the petitioner, which is a different subject matter. He further submitted that in the said decision of Mithilesh Kumar (supra), another case, i.e., YV Rangaiah -Vs- G Srinivasa Rao , reported in (1983) 3 SCC 284 was relied , and that the said decision was overruled by a subsequent decision, i.e., Himachal Pradesh -Vs- Raj Kumar and Others ’; reported in (2023) 3 SCC 773, decided on 20th of May, 2022, by which it was observed that the Rangaiah ‘s case (supra) does not reflect the correct proposition of law governing services under the Union and States under Part-XIV of the Constitution of India and the said judgment was overruled. He submitted a list of dates in connection with the instant case, wherein he had stated that the letter dated 09.03.2005 by the Deputy Commissioner to the Commissioner was not brought to the notice of the Court, while the Court passed the order dated 21.07.2014. On these grounds, the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner, submits that there is an error apparent on the face of the record as well as the document was not placed before the Court, by which review is amenable to entertainment. 12. On these grounds, the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner, submits that there is an error apparent on the face of the record as well as the document was not placed before the Court, by which review is amenable to entertainment. 12. Mr D Das, learned Senior Counsel, however, submitted that the letter dated 09.03.2005 was annexed in the writ petition being WP(C) No. 5072 of 2007, as Annexure-IV to the same and as such, there cannot be any argument that the said document was not placed before the Court and the existence of the such document has come to the knowledge of the review petitioner after the judgment dated 21.07.2014. He submitted that since the selection process had started with the date of advertisement, i.e., 18.09.1998, and on publication of the select list which was dated 19.06.1999, showing the petitioners as selected candidates, the erstwhile Assam Service (Pension) Rules, 1969, will be applicable. He further submitted that the stand of the State while passing the order dated 21.07.2014 was that the petitioners could not be appointed due to the ban on appointment and it was the further stand of the State that the petitioners would be appointed immediately on lifting of the said ban and as such, the petitioners were appointed and by not giving them the benefits of the erstwhile pension rules at the same, is an illegality committed by the State and as such, on challenge made to the same, this Court passed the necessary order. 13. The learned counsel relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 7369 of 2021 ( Sanjay Kumar -Vs- Union of India ), disposed of on 04.02.2022, wherein this Court had stated that when the advertisement was issued in the year 2003, and the selection process has commenced, the Old Pension Scheme was in force and any delay in the appointment of the petitioners, the cause which is not attributable to the petitioners, cannot disentitle the petitioners from the benefits of Old Pension Scheme, and as such, a mandamus was issued to the respondents to treat the petitioners as members of the Old Pension Scheme. He also relied on the judgment of Mithilesh Kumar (supra), wherein it is held that the norms of appointment as applicable on the date when the candidates are selected for appointment would be applicable and not the amended Rules. He also relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S Madhusudhan Reddy -vs V Narayana Reddy ; reported in (2022) 17 SCC 255 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had explained the powers of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC, 1908. 14. Mr Mazumdar, learned counsel for the State, however made a distinction of the judgment rendered by this Court in WP(C) No. 7369 of 2021, by submitting that in the facts of the said decision, the vacancy position was clear and although there is delay in the appointment, the Old Pension Scheme was said to be applicable, whereas in the instant case, according to the learned counsel there were no vacancies for appointment of the petitioners. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: 15. Before I delve into the facts and law narrated in the review petition, this Court would like to quote Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC, 1908, as under:- "Order XLVII Rule 1 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 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. (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.” A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision provides that on discovery of any new and important matter of evidence, which was not in the knowledge of the party concerned, in spite of exercising its due diligence or which could not be procured by him during the time when the case was disposed of, the same can be placed in a review jurisdiction. However, the same is not the case here. The communication dated 9th of March, 2005, was annexed to the writ petition, i.e., WP(C) No. 5072/2007, which was annexed as Annexure-IV, was before the Court. However, the same was not placed by the learned counsels appearing for the State Government during the proceeding of the said writ petition, rather it was annexed by the petitioners themselves. As such, it cannot be said that this document was procured later and the same was not in the knowledge of the State of Assam and the same cannot be a ground of review as contemplated under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC, 1908. It is further provided under the said provision that on account of any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, appearing in the judgment, the same can be reviewed and the said is also not the case here. It is no res- integra that the error apparent has to be shown by the party concerned on the very face of the record not on a deep study of the materials. 16. The learned counsel for the State of Assam stated that the observation made in order dated 21.07.2014 that in spite of vacancies, appointments were not made, is an error apparent. However, the same cannot be taken into account in view of the fact that it was clearly stated by the learned State Counsel that there was a ban of appointment and as such, the appointments could not be made, with a further submission that on lifting of the ban, the appointments would be made. However, the same cannot be taken into account in view of the fact that it was clearly stated by the learned State Counsel that there was a ban of appointment and as such, the appointments could not be made, with a further submission that on lifting of the ban, the appointments would be made. In view of the same, there can be no finding as to the existence of error apparent on the face of the record. 17. Error contemplated under the Rule must be such which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. It must be an error of inadvertence. No such error has been pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the State of Assam seeking review of the judgment. 18. In Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India and Ors. Reported in 1980 Supp SCC 562 , the Apex Court observed that a review of an earlier order cannot be done unless the court is satisfied that the material error which is manifest on the face of the order, would result in miscarriage of justice or undermine its soundness. The observations made are as under: " A review is not a routine procedure. Here we resolved to hear Shri Kapil at length to remove any feeling that the party has been hurt without being heard. But we cannot review our earlier order unless satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. 19. In Sow Chandra Kante and Anr. v. Sheikh Habib reported in (1975) 1 SCC674 the Apex Court observed: "A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility.... " 20. In Parsion Devi and Ors. v. Sumitri Devi and Ors. reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715 , the Apex Court held that an error that is not self-evident and the one that has to be detected by the process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise the powers of review. v. Sumitri Devi and Ors. reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715 , the Apex Court held that an error that is not self-evident and the one that has to be detected by the process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise the powers of review. It was observed as under: "It is well settled that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. reported in 1964 SCR (5 ) 174 the Court opined: 11. What, however, we are now concerned with is whether the statement in the order of September 1959 that the case did not involve any substantial question of law is an 'error apparent on the face of the record'. The fact that on the earlier occasion the Court held on an identical state of facts that a substantial question of law arose would not per se be conclusive, for the earlier order itself might be erroneous. Similarly, even if the statement was wrong, it would not follow that it was an 'error apparent on the face of the record', for there is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterized as vitiated by 'error apparent'. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. 21. Again, in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170 while quoting with approval a passage from Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma ; reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389 , the Apex Court once again held that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure and Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure 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 of review Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure. In exercise of this jurisdiction Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and corrected'. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'. 22. In T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa reported in 1955 SCR 250 , it was held that such error is an error which is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision. In Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad , reported in AIR 1955 SC 233 , it was held: It is essential that it should be something more than a mere error; it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record. It was also held that Learned Counsel on either side were unable to suggest any clear-cut Rule by which the boundary between the classes of errors could be demarcated. Certain observations of Chagla, CJ in - ' Batuk K. Vyas v. Surat Borough Municipality ; ILR 1953 Bom 191, be referred to wherein it was stated that no error could be said to be apparent on the face of the record if it was not self- evident and if it required an examination or argument to establish it. This test might afford a satisfactory basis for decision in the majority of cases. But there must be cases in which even this test might break down, because judicial opinions also differ, and an error that might be considered by one Judge as self- evident might not be so considered by another. The fact is that what is an error apparent on the face of the record cannot be defined precisely or exhaustively, there being an element of indefiniteness inherent in its very nature, and it must be left to be determined judicially on the facts of each case. 23. Further under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, it is provided that Review is permissible for any other sufficient reason. 23. Further under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, it is provided that Review is permissible for any other sufficient reason. The words "any-other sufficient reason” must mean "a reason sufficient on grounds analogous to those specified in the rule" as it was held in Chajju Ram v. Neki Ram reported in AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by the Apex Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos. v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius reported in 1955 SCR 520 . 24. As can be seen from the above exposition of law that it has been consistently held by this Court in several judicial pronouncements that the Court's jurisdiction of review, is not the same as that of an appeal. A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers of review Under Order XLVII Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure. In the guise of exercising powers of review, the Court can correct a mistake but not substitute the view taken earlier merely because there is a possibility of taking two views in a matter. 25. Further a judgment may also be open to review when any new or important matter of evidence has emerged after passing of the judgment, subject to the condition that such evidence was not within the knowledge of the party seeking review or could not be produced by it when the order was made despite undertaking an exercise of due diligence. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision as against an error apparent on the face of the record. An erroneous decision can be corrected by the Superior Court, however an error apparent on the face of the record can only be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction. Yet another circumstance referred to in Order XLVII Rule 1 for reviewing a judgment has been described as "for any other sufficient reason". The said phrase has been explained to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule" as stated above. 26. Yet another circumstance referred to in Order XLVII Rule 1 for reviewing a judgment has been described as "for any other sufficient reason". The said phrase has been explained to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule" as stated above. 26. Further, the argument of Mr Mazumdar that the case referred in the Mithilesh Kumar (supra), i.e., Rangaiah’s case (supra) , was overruled later by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It be stated here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in the said decision, i.e., State of Himachal Pradesh (supra), that there is no rule of universal application that vacancies must be necessarily filled on the basis of the law which existed on the date when it arose and that Rangaiah’s case (supra) , must be understood in the context of rules inferred therein. 27. Further, it is noticed in the communication dated 25th of January,2005, that while promulgating the New Pension Scheme, it was contemplated that the Government Servants joining the services of the State Government, on or after 1st of February, 2005, should give an undertaking that they will be governed by the New Pension Scheme. As such, the argument made by the learned counsel for the State that there is a distinction between recruitment rules and the pension provided after retirement, cannot stand in the eyes of law. Further, in the letter dated 9th of March, 2005, it was stated that during the said year, 61 numbers of post became vacant in the said amalgamated establishment and the said issue was brought to the notice of the State Government and due to the requirement of employees to man the work, a request was made by the Deputy Commissioner for approval of the appointment of the petitioners in the vacant posts of Mandal, in compliance of the order dated 31.01.2005. In the order dated 31.01.2005, it was clearly directed that the Deputy Commissioner of Darrang, after getting approval from the Government, should appoint the petitioners in the vacant posts of Mandal, and in pursuance to the said order, a recommendation was made after obtaining approval for appointment of the petitioners to the post of Mandal and as such, the petitioners were appointed from the same select list published in the year 1999, it is also seen that the Deputy Commissioner had put up a note on 23.05.2015, in pursuance to the direction given by the Under Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue Department that the petitioners being selected in the year 1999, and were appointed on 21.12.2005, and nowhere in the said communication, it was stated that the petitioners could not be appointed when 23 candidates were appointed due to absence of vacant posts. Rather, it was stated in the said communication that appointment of selected candidates were done in phased manner against available vacant posts. It was also stated that after giving appointment of 29 candidates, in some documents, it is written as 23 candidates, out of 38 candidates from the select list of 1999, the Government had imposed a ban on appointment and as such, the petitioners could not be appointed. Nowhere in the said communication, it is stated that there were no vacancies available or that the select list had expired, which of course was clarified by the learned counsel for the State that it was extended. Further, in the letter dated 09.03.2005, the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, did not state that petitioner could not be appointed due to absence of vacancies but due to absence of adequate vacancies of which would imply that there were vacancies but not adequate, in numbers, if said contention is accepted for the sake of argument. As such, it is clear that Review Petitioner itself is not clear about the facts. Therefore, the claim cannot be accepted. 28. In such a view of the matter, the ground taken by the learned State Counsel that the fact of non-availability of vacancy not being brought to the knowledge of the Court, cannot be a ground for review, as the same was neither placed nor it was not within the knowledge of the party concerned.Furthermore, there appears, no error on the face of the record as noted above. 29. 29. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed.