1 2026:CGHC:8443 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 81 of 2025 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary Department of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur C.G. 2 - Principle Chief Conservator of Forest, Forest Head Quarter, Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.). 3 - Conservator of Forest Ambikapur, District Surguja, (C.G.). 4 - Divisional Forest Officer Baikunthpur, Forest Division Baikunthpur, District Koriya, (C.G.). 5 - Forest Range Officer Patna, District Koriya, (C.G.). 6 - Chairman Scrutiny Committee (Forest) Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.). ... Applicants Versus 1 - Ramdev Ahir S/o Rameshwar, aged about 49 years, R/o Village Karhaiyakhad, Post Girijapur, P.S. Patna, Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya C.G. Working as Van Surksha Shramik / Chowkidar, Posted at Beet Termi, Forest Range Patna, Divisions Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.). 2 - Shrinath S/o Gangasagar, aged about 45 years, R/o Village Nandhan, Post Girijapur, Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh Working as Van Surksha Shramik / Chowkidar Posted at Beet Patna Forest Range Patna Division Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.). 3 - Sonsai Patel Alias Susharma S/o Buddhuram, aged about 44 years, R/o Village and Post Ranai Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.) Working as Van Surksha Shramik / Chowkidar Posted at Beet Patna Forest Range Patna Division Baikunthpur, District Koriya, (C.G.). Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 4 - Ramcharan S/o Mohan Sai, aged about 47 years, R/o Village and Post Ranai Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.) Working as Van Surksha Shramik / Chowkidar Posted at Beet Patna Forest Range Patna Division Baikunthpur, District Koriya, (C.G.). 5 - Ram Lakhan Yadav S/o Heera Lal, aged about 56 years, R/o Village Sorga, Post Pandavpara, Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.) Working as Van Surksha Shramik / Chowkidar Posted at Beet Temri Forest Range Patna Division Baikunthpur, District Koriya, (C.G.) ... Non Applicants (Cause title is taken from Case Information System Software) For State/Applicants : Mr. Avinash Singh, G.A. For Non Applicants : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J (Order On Board) 17.02.2026 1. The applicants/State is directed to remove the default as pointed out by the Registry during the course of day. 2. Heard both the counsel for the parties on this review petition. 3. By this review petition, the applicants/State are seeking review of the order dated 05.04.2024 passed in WPS No. 2350/2013 whereby the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioners was allowed and while setting aside the order dated 19.06.2013, the Hon’ble Court has directed the applicants herein to regularize the services of the petitioners from the date when the similarly situated persons were regularized by the State and has further held that the non applicants shall be entitled for all consequential benefits. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants/State submits that the order dated 05/04/2024 (Annexure A/1) was passed on the basis of erroneous facts 3 provided by the non-applicants, and without proper consideration of the relevant documents and materials pertaining to their case. In view of the foregoing, it is prayed that the order dated 05/04/2024 (Annexure A/1) be recalled. The non-applicants secured the impugned order on the basis of erroneous facts and fabricated documents. Moreover, they have deliberately suppressed material facts, and it is a settled position that fraud vitiates every transaction. In support thereof. it is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Khoday Distilleries Limited v. Mahadeshwara Sahakar Sakkare Kharkhane Limited, reported in (2019) 3 SCR 411, allowed a review petition in the Hon'ble High Court on the ground of suppression of material facts, even after deciding the Special Leave Petition. The order under review was procured by the non-applicants through the suppression and concealment of material evidence. When required to submit proof of the requisite qualifications for regularization, the non-applicants namely, Ramdev Ahir, Ramlakhan, Shrinath, and a family member of Ramcharan (who died on 19/09/2023) failed to produce the necessary documents. This failure clearly establishes that they do not possess the qualifications mandated by the circular dated 05/03/2008, as all are not educated, except for Sonsai Patel (also known as Susharma, son of Buddhuram Sharma), who is only an 8th class pass. Furthermore, there exists a material discrepancy in the record of Sonsai's name. In the muster roll, his name is entered as "Sonsai, son of Buddhuram"; in his Class 8 mark sheet, it appears as "Susharma, son of Buddhuram"; and in his Aadhaar Card, it is recorded as "Sonsharma, son of Sudilram Patel" Copies of the relevant documents evidencing these discrepancies have been filed as ANNEXURE A/2. The circular dated 05/03/2008, and in 4 particular clause no 2(1), clearly prescribes that only those daily wage or ad hoc employees who were engaged against sanctioned and vacant posts and who possess the qualifications prescribed in the departmental recruitment rules are eligible for regularization, subject to the fulfillment of other prescribed norms and criteria. In the present case, the employees Ramdev Ahir, Ramlakhan, Shrinath, and Ramcharan are all not educated and have failed to produce any mark- sheet evidencing the requisite qualifications. They have categorically admitted to their not being educated and the non-possession of any mark-sheet. Copies of the undertakings/ certificates provided by Ramdev Ahir, Ramlakhan, Shrinath, and the family member of Ramcharan are filed as ANNEXURE A/3. The actual name of the individual referred to as "Sonsai" is, in fact, Susharma, and the muster roll has been corrected accordingly to reflect his father's correct name. Susharma, son of Buddhuram, submitted an application in which he categorically admitted that he has been employed in the Baikunthpur Range since 1984. However, the workplace cited in his application- namely, Gobri Nursery-has never existed, as no such nursery was ever established. Furthermore, although Susharma produced muster rolls from the Forest Range Devgarh, District Koriya, and the Forest Range Janakpur, District Manendragarh, these documents fail to record any evidence of his employment in those locations. He would further submit that the muster roll No. 41 dated 22/03/1999, along with subsequent muster rolls on record, clearly demonstrates that the said Sonsai, S/o Buddhuram, is recorded as having worked on the same date and on the same day at two distinct locations-namely, Lambok and Dogritola- which is factually and practically impossible. This discrepancy 5 conclusively establishes that the said Sonsai did not work continuously for a period of 10 years with an artificial break of one month, as required for regularization. Consequently, he is not eligible for regularization. To substantiate this contention, copies of the relevant pages of the muster rolls are filedas ANNEXURE A/4, which unequivocally show that the adduced muster rolls do not establish his continuous service for the requisite period. During the period from 1990 to 1999, the employees in question were engaged as labourers, as necessitated by the requirements of their services. In recognition of their work, they were remunerated not only with wages, but also with food grains. To substantiate this, the relevant pages of the muster roll- showing the disbursement of foodgrains in conjunction with wages to the labourers are filed as ANNEXURE A/5. From the said muster roll, it is evident that all the aforementioned employees were engaged in the capacity of labourers and not on a daily wages basis. The non- applicants/petitioners were under an unequivocal obligation to prove that they had been continuously employed in the establishment of the applicants/respondents However, they have utterly failed to meet this burden of proof by adducing any documentary evidence to establish continuous service. He last submits that the list appended to the order dated 22/08/2008 does not include the names of the non-applicants. Had their names not been sent for scrutiny for the purpose of regularization, there would have been no basis for recommending their regularization. Subsequent to the scrutiny of the names contained in that list, the Scrutiny Committee submitted its report on 30/08/2008. Based on the departmental records, the applicants then prepared a chart reflecting the work performed by the non-applicants/petitioners 6 during the period in which they were engaged as daily wage employees. Consequently, it is evident that the non-applicants did not work continuously for the requisite period of 10 years or more, thereby rendering them ineligible for regularization under the law as declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (supra). Hence, the order passed by this Court in WPS No. 2350 of 2013 may kindly be recalled. 5. Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned Advocate for the non applicants has supported the impugned order. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is well settled that scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and only an error apparent on face of record can be corrected in the said jurisdiction and re-appraisal/re-appreciation cannot be done in exercise of said jurisdiction as that would amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is impermissible in law as has been held in catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court, such as Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 61, Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt), reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others, reported in (1996) 10 SCC 174, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, Akhilesh Yavad v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 1 and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 692). 8. The grounds raised by the review petitioners/applicants in this review 7 petition cannot be permitted to be raised in review petition. Even otherwise, there is no error apparent on the face of record in the order under review warranting invocation of review jurisdiction. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge U.K. Raju