1 2026:CGHC:12022 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 80 of 2026 1 - Jaibhan Singh Rathore S/o Shri G.L. Singh, Aged About 64 Years Retired Chief Executive Officer, R/o Hig Dd-2 Shri Ravishankar Housingh Board Colony, Lal Baag, Jagdalpur, District- Jagdalpur (Bastar) Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Tribal And Schedule Cast Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., 2 - Commissioner, Department Of Tribal And Schedule Cast Development Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through The Secretary, Shankar Nagar, P.S. Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., 4 - N.R. Dewangan, Assistant Commissioner, Working At Commissioner, Tribal And Schedule Caste Development Department, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Review Petitioner : Mr.Tanmay Thomas, Advocate For State : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 13.03.2026 1. By way of this review petition, the petitioner has sought the recall/modification of the order dated 11.09.2025 passed in WPS No.3673/2018 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner would submit that the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission in its reply particularly in paras 2 & 3 stated that the petitioner had not qualified the departmental examination and such statement was erroneous and contrary to the facts. It is argued that the petitioner qualified the departmental examination on 19.01.2001 and thus, the respondent authorities submitted wrong factual submission. It is further argued that the order with regard to completion of probation period was issued at belated stage on 21.06.2016, whereas, services were confirmed from the date of qualifying the departmental examination i.e. 19.01.2001 with retrospective effect. He would submit that the petitoner put more than 27 years of service but did not receive benefit of promotion even once, whereas his junior i.e. respondent No.4 was pro- moted twice. He would pray for recall of order dated 11.09.2025 passed in WPS No.3673 of 2018. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/State would oppose. He would submit that the petitioner has already retired on account of superannuation and he filed a writ petition at belated stage, claiming therein promotion after six years from 2012 when first cause of action had arisen. It is also argued that the petitioner did not explain delay in writ petition and he was not eligible for promotion, therefore, writ petition was dismissed. It is also argued that the petitioner was represented through a counsel in the writ petition and specific ground with regard to qualifying the departmental examination, was not raised at the time of hearing. Therefore, this review petition deserves to be dismissed. 3 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material/documents available on the record. 5. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that : (i) The petitioner has already retired on account of superannuation; (ii) The petitioner filed a writ petition after six years from 2012 when first cause of action arose and after three years from 2015 when second time cause of action arose but failed to explain delay part; (iii) The petitioner did not qualify the departmental examination. 6. It is argued that the petitioner had qualified the departmental examination in the year 2001 and thereafter, his services were confirmed. In the writ petition, the petitioner was represented through a counsel and no such plea was taken at the time of hearing. Further, writ petition was dismissed on the ground of delay as the petitioner failed to explain delay part and in para 7 of the writ petition, it was declared that there was no delay in filing writ petition. The petitioner had claimed promotion to the post of Assistant Director on the ground that junior to him i.e. respondent No.4 was promoted to the said post vide order dated 18.07.2012 and to the post of Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 07.12.2015, whereas, writ petition was filed in the year 2018. 7. On due consideration of the above-discussed facts, it can safely be held that pleadings and grounds raised in the review petition are in the nature of taking the liberty to re-argue the writ petition which is unsustainable in the eyes of law. 8. 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. 4 9. 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 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." 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 Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra reported in 2019 (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 5 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. (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. 12. 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 disguise of 6 review, petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and decided.” 13. 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.” 14. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in above-referred judgments, I do not find any good ground to entertain this review petition. Accordingly, the instant review petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Rekha