1 CGHC010086252026 2026:CGHC:31085 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 87 of 2026 1 - Manoj Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Dev Kumar Sharma Aged About 49 Years Presently Posted As Assistant Revenue Inspector, Nagar Panchayat-Dabhra, District- Sakti (C.G.) (In Writ Petition Mentioned As Aged About 39 Years, Currently Working Computer Operator, (Coolectorate) In Nagar Panchayat Adhbhar, R/o Ward No. 12, Nagar Panchayat Adbhar, Thana- Malkharowda, Tehsil- Malkharowda, District- Janjgir-Champa, C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus 1 - Shri Baswaraju S. Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Shri Remijius. Ekka Director, Directorate Of Urban Administration And Development, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Shri Rakesh Jaiswal Regional Office, Urban Administration Department, Bilaspur, Nehru Complex, B.D.A. Building, Old R.T.O. Office, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Shri Anand Raj Chief Municipal Officer, Adhbhar, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 5 - Shri Bodhram Dinkar Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Dabhara, District- Sakti (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Harsh Wardhan Agrawal, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 21/07 /2026 2 1. This review petition is filed seeking review of the order dated 29.01.2026 passed in contempt case bearing CONT No. 1251/2025 whereby this Court has closed the contempt proceedings against the respondents therein arising of the order dated passed in WP (S) No. 2467/2015 and the observation made by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal bearing WA No. 732/2024 alleging that direction issued has not been complied with. 2. However, considering the submission made by the counsel for the applicant/respondent therein, that the order has been complied with, the contempt petition has been disposed of. He also submits that the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Dabhara is not the authority competent to consider and take decision on the claim of the petitioner as observed in the order dated 12.11.2024 passed in WA No. 732/2024. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant in the contempt petition. 4. Prayer made by the petitioner is that direction be issued ensuring effective compliance of order dated 12.11.2024 in WA No. 732/2024 by taking cognizance of the contempt committed by the respondent contemnors. The writ petition i.e. WP (S) No. 2467/2015 filed by the petitioner is against his non-appointment on the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector. The writ court while allowing the writ petition has observed as under:- “20. As a consequence, considering the facts & circumstances of the case, this Court direct the respondents authorities / competent authorities to issue necessary letter of appointment to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector in Nagar Panchayat, Dabhra or Nagar Panchayat, Naya Baradwar wherein the posts of un-reserved category is said to be vacant, as has been informed by the State Counsel. Seniority of the petitioner for all purposes will however be counted only from the date of actual appointment on the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector.” 3 5. The decision in the writ petition with regard to seniority is put to challenge in writ appeal. However, the writ appeal being disposed of with liberty to the appellant and respondents therein to consider the case of the appellant for promotion avenues for the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector, above Respondent No. 6 in accordance with law. 6. The specific finding recorded in writ petition to count the seniority of the petitioner for all purpose from the date of actual appointment is not set- aside. Petitioner submitted representation (Annexure C/4) before the State authorities. In the facts of the case, where the order passed in writ petition of fixing the seniority of the applicant herein from the date of actual appointment on the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector and further considering that pursuant to the order in the writ petition, petitioner has already been given appointment while disposing of of the contempt petition, this Court in para 2 of the order dated 29.01.2026 has taken into consideration, the eligibility of the petitioner for the promotion. 7. It is well settled that in the guise of review, rehearing is not permissible. In order to seek review it has to be demonstrated that order suffers from error apparent on the face of record. The scope of review is very limited and an order or judgment is open to review only if there is an error apparent on the face of record. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. Meera Bhanja vs Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported in AIR 1995 SC 455 and Surendra Kumar Vakil & ors vs. Chief Executive Officer, MP & ors reported in (2004) 10 SCC 126 has considered the issue with regard to grounds on which review petition can be considered and it was observed that a point that has been heard and decided cannot form a ground for review even if assuming that the view taken in the judgment under review is erroneous. 8. In the case of Asharfi Devi (dead) through LRs Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in (2019) 5 SCC 86, it was held thus: 4 “18. It is a settled law that every error whether factual or legal cannot be made subject matter of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code though it can be made subject matter of appeal arising out of such order. In other words, in order to attract the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code, the error/mistake must be apparent on the face of the record of the case.” 9. In the aforementioned facts of the case, and the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I do not find any error apparent on the face of record. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY