1 CGHC010218772026 2026:CGHC:32162 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 179 of 2026 1 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Dongargaon District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Through Roshni Bhagat Toppo W/o Late Shri Ashok Kumar Toppo Aged About 40 Years, Presently Posted As C E O Janapad Panchayat Dongargaon District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Department Of Panchayat Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Rajnandgaon District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 3 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Rajnandgaon District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 4 - Khumesh Kumar Sahu S/o Jhanak Lal Aged About 22 Years R/o Hose No 7 Ward No.1 Singarpur Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajit Singh, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. S. S. Choubey, G.A. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 28/07/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following prayer:- “It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present Review Petition and modify/clarify the order dated 01.04.2026 passed in WPS No. 4304 of 2023, particularly paragraph 13 thereof, to the extent that after the direction for reinstatement of the writ petitioner forthwith on the post of Assistant Grade-III, may kindly pass an order that However respondents is liberty to conduct a fresh enquiry strictly in accordance with law and as per applicable rules, after following due procedure and affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner", in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present review petition has been filed only to seek liberty to conduct a fresh enquiry in accordance with law, as the writ petition was allowed primarily on the ground of procedural irregularities and violation of the principles of natural justice. He submits that the writ petitioner was not eligible for regularization under the applicable policy and 3 statutory provisions, and the regularization order dated 25.01.2021 was passed without following the prescribed procedure and in violation of the law laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1. It is, therefore, prayed that liberty be granted to the review petitioners to initiate fresh proceedings after following due procedure and affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner as such this review petition has been filed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the order passed by this Court. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order under review. 5. It is well settled that scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and only an error apparent on face of record can be corrected in the said jurisdiction and re-appraisal/re-appreciation cannot be done in exercise of said jurisdiction as that would amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is impermissible in law as has been held in catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court, such as Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 61, Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt), reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others, reported in (1996) 10 SCC 174, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, Akhilesh Yavad v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 1 and Sasi (D) through 4 LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 692). 6. The grounds raised by the review petitioner in this review petition cannot be permitted to be raised in review petition. Even otherwise, there is no error apparent on the face of record in the order under review warranting invocation of review jurisdiction. 7. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat