1 2026:CGHC:6657 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 27 of 2026 1 - Smt. Triveni Mahant W/o Chandramani Mahant Aged About 40 Years Occupation - Assistant Teacher (L.B.), Government Primary School Kudrikhar, Korba District Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Public Instruction Directorate Chhattisgarh First Floor, C-Block Indiravati Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Joint Director Education Department Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Collector Korba District Korba (C.G.) 5 - Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Revenue) Korba District Korba (C.G.) 6 - Block Education Officer Korba District Korba (C.G.) 7 - Secretary District Rationalization Committee District Education Officer Korba District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinod Tekam, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 05/02/2026 ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.02.20 10:15:22 +0530 2 1. The present review petition has been filed by the review petitioner seeking review of the order dated 01.07.2025 passed by this Court in WPS No. 4106/2025 and WPS No. 6249/2025 on the ground that after passing of the order in the present writ petitions, the co-ordinate bench of this Court has granted relief in similar issue after considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in S. K. Nausad Rahaman and Others, vs. Union of India and Others, reported in (2022) 12 SCC 1, and since the petitioner is also similarly situated, she is also entitled for the same relief, therefore, the order dated 01.07.2025 may be reviewed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the writ petition the petitioner raised the medical grounds that she is undergoing the IVF treatment and in the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, there is no provisions to consider the posting of the teachers on the ground of their ailment. The medical difficulty of the government servant has been considered by co-ordianate Bench of this Court in WPS No. 10211/2025 and after granting stay for 08 weeks the petitioner in WPS No. 10211/2025 was directed to make a representation before the concerned authorities within two weeks who will decide the same in accordance with law and also in view of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. K. Nausad Rahaman (Supra) within an outer limit of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the representation. He would further submits that the petitioner is also entitled to avail her right to file a representation before the concerned authorities on her medical difficulties, therefore, the order dated 01.07.2025 passed in WPS No. 4106/2025 and WPS No. 6249/2025 may be reviewed and by setting aside the orders, the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner on medical grounds. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes and submits that after considering the merits of the case, the writ petition of the 3 petitioner has been dismissed and there is no ground available to the review petitioner for review of the order under review. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the review petition and writ petition. 5. Perusal of the order under view would show that it is bi-party order and the grounds raised in the writ petition that the learned co-ordinate bench of this Court has granted relief to other government employee in WPS No. 10211/2025 considering the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. K. Nausad Rahaman (Supra). It transpires that during the submissions made by the review petitioner, during the hearing of both the aforesaid writ petitions, the said judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court has not been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner and this Court has passed the order on 01.07.2025 after considering the relevant provisions of Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024, passing of an order by the learned co-ordinate bench cannot be a ground to review the present order dated 01.07.2025 passed in WPS No. 6249/2025 and WPS No. 4106/2025. 6. At this juncture, it shall be advantageous to discuss the law with regard to the power of review. The Court may review its judgment or order, but no application for review shall be entertained except on the grounds mentioned under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. 7. Section 114 of the CPC vests power of review in the 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 of CPC (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. 4 (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. 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." 8. In the matter of M/s Northern India (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governer of Delhi, 1980 (2) SCC 167, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “A plea for review, unless the first judicial view is manifestly distorted, is like asking for the moon. A forensic defeat cannot be avenged by an invitation to have a second look, hopeful of discovery of flaws and reversal of result. A review in counsel's mentation cannot repair the verdict once given. So the law laid down must rest in peace.” 9. In the matter of Sajjan Singh and others vs. State of Rajasthan and others [AIR 1965 SC 845], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “the parties are not entitled to seek review of the judgment delivered by this Court merely for purpose for review and fresh decision of the case. The normal principle that judgments pronounced by this Court would 5 be final,cannot be ignored and unless considerations of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.” 10. 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.” 11. In the matter of M/S Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd v. Assam State Electricity Board reported in 2020 (2) SCC 677, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the petition and held that “The scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and decided.” 12. In the matter of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa reported in AIR 1960 SC 137, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-8 held as under:- “8. The main question that arises for our consideration in this appeal by special leave granted by this Court is whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record so as to enable the superior court to call for the records and quash the order by a writ of certiorari or whether the error, if any, was "a mere error not so apparent on the face of the record", which can only be corrected by an appeal if an appeal lies at all.” 6 13. In the present review petition, the petitioner has prayed for the recall of the order passed by this Court in WPS No. 6249/2025 and WPS No. 4106/2025. The prayer made by the review petitioner appears to be misconceived. Further, the aforesaid two writ petitions is decided by this Court on 01.07.2025, after discussing the facts and going through the documents available on record, and there is no error of law or facts apparent on the face of record, therefore, the prayer sought for recalling of the order dated 01.07.2025 passed in WPS No. 6249/2025 and WPS No. 4106/2025 by way of this review petition is not permissible, and in the opinion of this Court, no ground is made out for review. 14. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok