1 2026:CGHC:22763 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 129 of 2026 1 - Chief Executive Officer Janpat Panchayat Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Anita Lakda W/o Late Shivprasad Lakda Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Parsodi Khurd, Post Bhithikala, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Block Education Officer Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate For State : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. Govt. Advocate Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 14.05.2026 1. The present review petition has been preferred by the review petitioners seeking review and recall of the order dated 23.01.2026 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5225 of 2023 whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein was disposed of with a direction to the authorities to consider the case of the writ petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment on the post of Class-IV employee. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the husband of the original writ petitioner died in harness on 09.10.2012 while working as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III. Under the prevailing policy applicable to dependents of deceased Shiksha Karmis, compassionate appointment could only be granted on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III/Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) subject to fulfillment of requisite educational qualifications. It has been argued that the writ petitioner admittedly did not possess the requisite educational qualification for appointment on the said post, namely Higher Secondary qualification coupled with D.Ed and TET qualification, and therefore she could not be granted compassionate appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat). Learned counsel further submits that subsequently, the State Government had taken a policy decision permitting appointment of dependents of deceased 3 Shiksha Karmis on the post of Panchayat Secretary and, accordingly, the petitioner’s case was considered for the said post. Since the writ petitioner was only 8th pass at the relevant time, she was granted time to acquire Higher Secondary qualification. Thereafter, upon obtaining Higher Secondary qualification, she submitted her mark-sheet and sought compassionate appointment on the post of Panchayat Secretary. It has further been contended that before any final decision could be taken in the matter, the State Government issued circular/instructions dated 02.06.2017 restraining compassionate appointment on the post of Panchayat Secretary and directing that such posts be filled only through direct recruitment. Consequently, no appointment could be granted to the writ petitioner on the said post. Learned counsel submits that there exists no provision under the applicable compassionate appointment policy for grant of compassionate appointment to a dependent of deceased Shiksha Karmi on any Class-IV post. 3. It has been argued that the review petitioners had never expressed willingness before this Court for considering the petitioner on Class-IV post and, therefore, the observation contained in paragraph 9 of the order dated 23.01.2026 directing consideration of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on Class-IV post travels beyond the policy framework and deserves to be reviewed and recalled. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record. 4 5. The principal contention raised by the petitioners is that there exists no provision under the applicable compassionate appointment policy for grant of appointment on Class-IV post to the dependent of a deceased Shiksha Karmi and, therefore, the direction issued by this Court requires reconsideration. 6. Before adverting to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be apposite to note the settled legal position governing exercise of review jurisdiction. The power of review is not an appellate power and cannot be exercised merely because another view is possible on merits. Review jurisdiction can be invoked only when there exists an error apparent on the face of record, discovery of new and important matter, or any other sufficient reason analogous thereto. 7. In case of Shanti Conductors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assam State Electricity Board and others, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 677, the Hon’ble Suprme Court has held thus:- “25. …....... The scope of review has been reiterated by this Court from time to time. It is sufficient to refer the judgment of this Court in Parsion Devi and Others Vs. Sumitri Devi and Others, (1997) 8 SCC 715, wherein in paragraph 9 following has been laid down: “9. 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 5 to exercise its power of 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 a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”.” 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. Murali Sundarm vs. Jotibai Kannan and Others, reported in (2023) 13 SCC 515 has held that a review is not an appeal, it can only correct errors apparent on the face of the record, not re- evaluate evidence or re-argue the case. The High Court had wrongly acted beyond its jurisdiction by reviewing and overturning its own final judgment without such an error. The original judgment was restored. Relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted below for ready reference : “16. While considering the aforesaid issue two decisions of this Court on Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114CPC are required to be referred to? In Perry Kansagra [Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra, (2019) 20 SCC 753] this Court has observed that while exercising the review jurisdiction in an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114CPC, the Review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. It is observed that a rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It is further observed that review is not appeal in disguise. It is observed 6 that power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. It is further observed that it is wholly unjustified and exhibits a tendency to rewrite a judgment by which the controversy has been finally decided. 17. After considering a catena of decisions on exercise of review powers and principles relating to exercise of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1CPC this Court had summed up as under : (Perry Kansagra case [Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra, (2019) 20 SCC 753] , SCC pp. 768-69, para 15.1) “15.1. ‘33. … “… (i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1CPC. (ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. 7 (iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. (iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate. (v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit.” ’ (As observed in : Inderchand Jain v. Motilal, (2009) 14 SCC 663, p. 675, para 33)” It is further observed in the said decision that an error which is required to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error on the face of the record. 18. In Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. [Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Assam SEB, (2020) 2 SCC 677 : (2020) 2 SCC (Civ) 788] , it is observed and held that scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1CPC read with Section 114CPC is limited and under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue questions which have already been addressed and decided. It is further observed that 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 8 exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1CPC.” 9. From perusal of the order dated 23.01.2026 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5225 of 2023, it is evident that this Court had taken into consideration the peculiar factual background of the case, namely, that after the death of the husband of the writ petitioner, the authorities themselves repeatedly processed and considered her candidature for compassionate appointment; that she was granted opportunities to acquire requisite qualifications; that she acted upon the directions issued by the department and acquired Higher Secondary qualification; and that ultimately, due to subsequent policy changes, the claim of the petitioner remained unresolved for years together. 10. The direction issued by this Court for consideration of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on Class-IV post was essentially in the nature of an equitable consideration so that the object underlying compassionate appointment is not frustrated entirely on account of administrative and policy changes occurring during pendency of consideration of her case. Whether such consideration could or could not ultimately culminate into appointment was always subject to applicable rules, policy and availability of posts. The order dated 23.01.2026 merely directed consideration of the case of the petitioner and did not confer any absolute or vested right of appointment upon her. 9 11. This Court is of the considered opinion that the grounds raised by the petitioners essentially seek reconsideration of the matter on merits by advancing submissions which were either already available at the time of hearing of the writ petition or could have been raised therein. The same cannot be permitted under the limited scope of review jurisdiction. No error apparent on the face of record has been pointed out by the review petitioners warranting interference with the order dated 23.01.2026. 12. The contentions advanced by the petitioners may, at best, furnish a ground for assailing the order before an appropriate appellate forum, but the same do not fall within the narrow parameters governing review jurisdiction. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any ground to entertain the present review petition. Accordingly, the review petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. 14. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shayna