- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35271-DB RP No. 281 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REVIEW PETITION NO. 281 OF 2025 BETWEEN: DR NANJUNDAIAH S/O LATE NINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, NO. 508, 'ANUGRAHA', JAYAPURA HOBLI, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, BOGADI 2ND STAGE, MYSURU-570 026 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIKRAM PHADKE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, M.S BUILDING, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS ADDITIONAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, (TECHNICAL EDUCATION) M.S BUILDING, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION THANTHRIKA SHIKSHANA BHAVANA, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001. Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35271-DB RP No. 281 of 2025 4. THE SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, FINANCE DEPARTMENT (SERVICE - 1) BENGALURU-500 001. 5. THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING (AFFILIATED TO VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY AND GOVERNMENT GRANT IN AID) MANANDAVADI ROAD, MYSURU-570 008. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KHAMROZ KHAN, AGA FOR R1-R4, SRI. MAHESHA B, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS RP FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 R/W SEC.114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 02.09.2024 DISMISSING THE SAID WRIT APPEAL NO. 1014/2023 AT ANNEXURE D AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID WRIT APPEAL 1014/2023. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) This review petition is directed against the order dated 02.09.2024 passed by this Court in W.A.No.1014/2023, wherein this Court dismissed the writ appeal by affirming the order of the learned Single Judge. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35271-DB RP No. 281 of 2025 2. We have heard learned counsel Sri Vikram Phadke for the review petitioner and perused the entire materials on record. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the review petitioner that the impugned order of dismissal has challenged by the review petitioner before the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP Diary No.58481/2024 and the Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the said SLP as withdrawn by reserving liberty to the petitioner to review the impugned judgment on the ground that the petitioner stands discriminated for similarly situated employees. According to the learned counsel, respondent No.5 gave increment to 8 Associate Professors who are situated similarly though not subjected to the stipulation that they should complete PhD degree within seven years from the date of joining. In such circumstances, the petitioner stand discriminated and this Court has not considered the same while dismissing the writ appeal. 4. On perusal of the impugned order passed by this Court in the writ appeal, it is seen that the review petitioner has argued at length on the aforesaid aspects of the matter and the same have been dealt with by this Court in detail. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35271-DB RP No. 281 of 2025 5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs. State Tax Officers reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1406 by referring the case of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 25, as held in paragraph 10 as under: "10. It is also well-settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so." 6. Further, in the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court by referring Parsion Devi V. Sumitri Devi reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715 as held in paragraph 11 as under: "Under Order 47 Rule 1CPC 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 of review under Order 47 Rule 1CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1CPC 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”.” - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35271-DB RP No. 281 of 2025 7. Applying the above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that there is no apparent error on the face of the record/order dated 02.09.2024 passed by this Court in W.A.No.1014/2023. 8. Accordingly, the review petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the petition, pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and the same are disposed of. SD/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5