1 2026:CGHC:21900 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 126 of 2026 Shailendra Kumar Meshram S/o Babulal Meshram Aged About 69 Years R/o Mamta Nagar, Street No.6, Ward No. 17, Rajnandgaon, Dist. Rajnandgaon (C.G.). ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Agricultural Marketing (Mandi) Board Beej Bhawan, G E Road, Telibandha, Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate For State : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11/05/2026 1. The review petitioner has filed the present review petition seeking recall of the order dated 07.07.2025 passed in WPS No. 2177 of 2018. 2. The petitioner had earlier preferred WPS No. 2177 of 2018 claiming promotion to the post of Senior Secretary (Selection Grade), as his name was not considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). In the meantime, the petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2018. Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that his case for promotion from the post of Junior Secretary to Senior Secretary (Selection Grade) was not considered on account of non-availability of his Annual Confidential Reports for the years 1997–98, 1999–2000 and 2001–2002, whereas his juniors were granted promotion. Further, his claim was rejected on the ground that he had not completed the requisite qualifying service of five years on the post of Senior Secretary. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner would submit that the petitioner had continuously made representations before the respondent authorities and when no heed was paid, he preferred WPS No. 1112 of 2017, which was disposed of on 07.03.2017 with a direction to consider his representation. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner made a representation, which was rejected on 04.07.2017; thereafter, the petitioner preferred WPS No. 2177 of 2018. 5. On the date of hearing of WPS No. 2177 of 2018, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner; therefore, the matter was heard and decided on merits and dismissed in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Government of West Bengal v. Amal Satpathi & Ors. (2024 LiveLaw SC 927), wherein it was held that no retrospective promotion or seniority can be granted from a date when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre. He would further submit that several relevant grounds could not be brought to the notice of this Court as no one had appeared on behalf of the petitioner on the date of hearing of WPS No. 2177 of 2018; thus, he prays for recall of the order dated 07.07.2025 passed in WPS No. 2177 of 2018. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the matter was decided on merits and the review petitioner has failed to point out any mistake or error apparent on the face of the 3 record warranting exercise of review jurisdiction. He would further submit that the review petitioner seeks rehearing of the writ petition, which is not permissible in law. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 8. In this review petition, the petitioner has raised various grounds but has failed to point out any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. 9. It is a well-settled principle of law that a review cannot be entertained when it seeks a rehearing of the case. The pleadings further show that the review petitioner wants to re-argue the matter, and such relief cannot be granted. The claim of the petitioner with regard to promotion was duly considered and rejected by this Court in the writ petition (WPS No. 2177/2018). Even if the order passed by this Court is erroneous, on that ground alone the power of review cannot be exercised. This is also a well-settled principle of law that the review Court cannot sit as an appellate Court in appeal over its own order. 10.The relevant provisions of law and the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court are as under:– Section 114 of the CPC vests power of review in 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 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. (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 4 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." In the matter of Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others, 1997 (8) SCC 715, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-9 held as under:- 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 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.” In the matter of Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra, 2019 5 (20) SCC 753, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 15.1 held that:- “15.1. In Inderchand Jain it was observed in paras 10, 11 and 33 as under: (SCC pp. 669 & 675) "10. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order. 11. Review is not appeal in disguise. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India this Court held: (SCC p. 251, para 56) 56. It follows, therefore, that the 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. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise." 33. The High Court had rightly noticed the review jurisdiction of the court, which is as under: "The law on the subject exercise of power of review, as propounded by the Apex Court and various other High Courts may be summarised as hereunder: (i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. (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. (iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. 6 (iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact of 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.In our opinion, the principles of law enumerated by it, in the facts of this case, have wrongly been applied.” In the matter of M/S Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd v. Assam State Electricity Board, 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.” In the matter of Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy, (2021) 3 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “even the change in law of or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.” 11. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts and law, this review petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim