Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010062792025 2026:GAU-AS:1045 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./269/2025 TAMIZUDDIN AHMED S/O. LT. ABDUL ALI,R/O. VIII. GORBHITOR, P.O. DHAMAHAMA, P.S. BARAMA, DIST-BAKSA, BTC (BTR), ASSAM, PIN-781349 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION DEPTT. (ELEMENTARY), DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6, 2:THE DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION DEPTT. KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 3:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 4:THE SECRETARY BODOLAND TERRITIRIAL COUNCIL (BTR) BODOFA NWGWR KOKRAJHAR PIN-783370 ASSAM. 5:THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL (BTR) KOKRAJHAR PIN-783370 ASSAM. Page No.# 2/7 6:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY BTC (BTR) KOKRAJHAR PIN-783370 7:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOL BAKSA DISTRICT CIRCLE BAKSA (BTR) MUSHALPUR PIN-781372 8:THE HEADMASTER GARBHITOR HIGH SCHOOL P/O. NIZDHAMDHAMA PIN-781349 DIST. BAKSA BTAD (BTR) ASSAM For the Review Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.M. Choudhury, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Ms. B. Bhuyan, Sr. Advocate/ Standing Counsel, BTC, assisted by Ms. P. Kashyap, Advocate. -BEFORE- HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI 29.01.2026 (K. Goswami, J) Heard Mr. R.M. Choudhury, learned Advocate for the review petitioner and Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel, BTC. 2. The present review petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.01.2025 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.A. No.199/2023, whereby the writ appeal preferred by the review petitioner came to be dismissed and the rejection of his claim for regularization of service was upheld. Page No.# 3/7 3. The review petitioner approached the Writ Court challenging the order dated 15.03.2022 passed by the Director of Education, BTC, Kokrajhar, whereby the claim for regularization of his service as Assistant Teacher in 575 No. Garbhitor Moktab Lower Primary School was rejected. The learned Single Judge having dismissed the writ petition by judgment and order dated 30.03.2023 passed in WP(C) No.1244/2023, the same being assailed before the Division Bench of this Court, upon being upheld primarily on the ground that the initial appointment of the review petitioner to the subject post was in violation of the procedure laid down under the law, the present review petition has been filed. 4. Mr. R.M. Choudhury, learned Advocate for the review petitioner, seeks review of the judgment and order dated 21.01.2025 passed by this Court in W.A. No.199/2023 primarily on the basis of two documents, which could not be produced at the time of hearing of the writ petition and the writ appeal due to inadvertence. He submits that those documents would show that the review petitioner had been working as a stipendiary teacher continuously since 16.03.2001 and, therefore, the judgment under review requires reconsideration. 5. Per contra, Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Advocate for the BTC submits that there is no apparent error on the face of the record warranting review of the judgment of this Court. She further submits that the aforesaid documents were within the knowledge of the review petitioner all along and hence, the same cannot be equated with new discovery of facts, warranting exercise of the review jurisdiction. Page No.# 4/7 6. We have given our due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials available on record. 7. The scope of review of an order passed in exercise of writ jurisdiction is extremely limited. Though the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure do not strictly apply, the Court exercises review jurisdiction on principles analogous to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. It is well settled law that a review is not an appeal in disguise. This Court does not sit in review to re- hear the matter on its merits. It has been repeatedly held by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions that a review petition can be entertained only if there is a material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermining its soundness or resulting in miscarriage of justice. 8. In Kamlesh Verma -Vs- Mayawati & Ors. :: (2013) 8 SCC 320, the Apex Court authoritatively laid down the circumstances in which a review is maintainable and when it is not. 9. The Apex Court held that review can be entertained only on the following limited grounds:- (a) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced earlier; (b) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; and (c) any other sufficient reasons analogous thereto. Page No.# 5/7 10. The Apex Court further clarified that review is not maintainable for:- (a) re-hearing of the matter on its merit; (b) repetition of old and overruled arguments; (c) to improve or supplement the case by producing material that was available but not produced earlier; and (d) minor mistakes of inconsequential import. In other words, review jurisdiction cannot be permitted to be used as a backdoor appeal. 11. In the present review petition, the petitioner has enclosed two documents as Annexure-XXI & XII, respectively, claiming to have subsequently collected the same. The first document is the appointment order of the petitioner dated 16.03.2001 as Assistant Teacher at a stipend pay of Rs.1800/- per month in Gorbhitor Moktab L.P. School against the post created vide Government letter dated 08.03.2001 and allotted by DEE, Assam vide letter dated 08.03.2001. By relying upon the said appointment order, it is contended that the appointment of the petitioner was made as per approval of the Sub- Divisional Advisory Board, Elementary Education, BAC, Nalbari. The second document is a copy of the appointment of the petitioner as Siksha Karmi since August, 2003 to January, 2004 for the period of six months on honorarium of Rs.1,000/- per month as per order dated 10.09.2003 issued by the President and Members of the School Page No.# 6/7 Managing Committee of 575 No. Garbhitor Moktab Lower Primary School. By relying on the said document, it is further contended that the petitioner had worked as a stipendiary teacher since his appointment till date but has not received his stipend. 12. The said two documents have been enclosed in the review petition for the first time to contend that if the same were submitted before this Court earlier, this Court would have passed the order in favour of the review petitioner. 13. The said two documents now sought to be relied upon were admittedly in existence and within the knowledge of the petitioner. No material is placed before this Court to show that despite the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced during the writ proceedings. 14. The plea of “inadvertent omission” does not amount to “discovery of new and important evidence”. What is sought, in effect, is an opportunity to place additional material on record so as to persuade this Court to take a different view on its merits. Such an exercise is clearly impermissible within the limited contours of review jurisdiction. As held in Kamlesh Verma (supra), review proceedings cannot be used as a forum for re-hearing of the matter or for filling the lacuna in the case. 15. No error apparent on the face of the record has been demonstrated. The grounds urged require re-appreciation of the merits of the case, which lies outside the scope of review. Page No.# 7/7 16. The present review petition is in substance an attempt to re- open the case on merits by supplementing the records, which is impermissible in law. 17. In view of the above, we are of the unhesitant view that no ground for review is made out. 18. The review petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant