2026:HHC:22785 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Review Petition No.39 of 2026 Decided on: 17th June, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State of H.P. and others …..Petitioners Versus Saroop Kumar .....Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent: Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vasu Sood, Mr. Amir Khan and Ms. Nidhi Verma, Advocates. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge State seeks review of Saroop Kumar Versus State of H.P. & Ors.2. By the aforesaid judgment, the writ petition was allowed holding that the petitioner-State cannot withhold respondent’s promotion to the post of Divisional Fire Officer by keeping the open recommendations of the DPC in purported sealed cover. Accordingly, order dated 19.11.2022 impugned in the writ petition was set aside and 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes 2 CWP No.262/2024, decided on 25.10.2024 2 2026:HHC:22785 the petitioner-State was directed to implement the recommendations of the DPC convened on 26.09.2022. 2. Learned Additional Advocate General highlighted para 4 of the review petition to contend that though the petitioner (respondent herein) was senior to one Sh. Sanjeev Kumar and was recommended by the DPC for promotion to the post of Divisional Fire Officer, but since he was under suspension, therefore, he could not be promoted. That the petitioner was put under suspension by the State on 10.10.2022 under Rule 10(1)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 [in short ‘CCS(CCA) Rules’]. That charge memo was issued to the respondent by the petitioner-State on 22.10.2022 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. Accordingly, on 19.11.2022, the State ordered for keeping the recommendations made by the DPC on 26.09.2022 concerning the promotion of the petitioner in sealed cover. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that in view of these facts, the judgment in question is liable to be reviewed as prior to the issuance of the promotion order, the above events had happened. 3. All these points have already been raised by the petitioner-State while defending Saroop Kumar2 and have 3 2026:HHC:22785 been considered in the judgment. It is well settled that review petition can be an appeal in disguise. The principles for reviewing a decision were summed up in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Versus State Tax Officer (1) and another3 as under:- “16. The gist of the aforestated decisions is that: 16.1. A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. 16.2. 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. 16.3. 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. 16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". 16.5. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise". 16.6. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. 16.7. 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. 16.8. Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.” Further, in Malleeswari Versus K. Suguna and another4, Hon’ble Apex Court held that review 3 (2024) 2 SCC 362 4 2026:HHC:22785 jurisdiction cannot be assumed unless it is conferred by law on the authority or the Court. Power of review is different from the appellate power. Following limitations were laid down for maintaining the finality of judicial decisions:- “15.1 The 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 of CPC5. 15.2 Review is not to be confused with appellate powers, which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court6. 15.3 In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, 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 disguise7. 15.4 The power of review can be exercised for the correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits specified in the statute governing the exercise of power8. 15.5 The review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered9. Hence, it is invoked only to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors10.” It was further held that though through a review application, an apparent error of fact or law is intimated to the Court, but no extra reasoning is undertaken to explain 4 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1927 5 Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170 6 Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389 7 Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715 8 Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224 9 Inderchand Jain v. Motilal, (2009) 14 SCC 663 10 Shivdev Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (1963) SC 1909 5 2026:HHC:22785 the said error. The intimation of error at the first blush enables the Court to correct apparent errors instead of higher court correcting such errors. At both the stages, detailed reasoning is not warranted. Distinction between power of review and appellate power as also the power & scope of review jurisdiction was summed up as under:- “17.1 The ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence is a ground available if it is demonstrated that, despite the exercise of due diligence, this evidence was not within their knowledge or could not be produced by the party at the time, the original decree or order was passed. 17.2 Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record may be invoked if there is something more than a mere error, and it must be the one which is manifest on the face of the record11. Such an error is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision12. An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record13. 17.3 Lastly, the phrase ‘for any other sufficient reason' means a reason that is sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the other two categories14.” Applying the above principles to the facts of the instant case, there cannot be said to be any mistake or error apparent on the face of record. Petitioner-State is only seeking reconsideration and rehearing of the entire case by 11 Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, (1955) 1 SCR 1104 12 T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa, AIR (1954) SC 440 13 Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR (1960) SC 137 14 Chhajju Ram v. Neki, 1922 SCC OnLine PC 11 and approved in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Mar Poulose Athanasius, AIR (1954) SC 526 6 2026:HHC:22785 seeking the Court to sit in appeal over the judgment. No case for review is, thus, made out. 4. For the foregoing reasons, no case for review of the judgment in question is made out. Accordingly, the present review petition is dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua June 17, 2026 Judge Mukesh