1 / 8 CGHC010267962026 2026:CGHC:33076-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 218 of 2026 Digambar Singh S/o Late Shri M P Singh Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward No. 12, House No. 51/5, Nandini Nagar, Post - Nandini, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh 490036 ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State of Chhattisgarh Department of Health and Family Welfare, Through The Principal Secretary, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate of Health Services, Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Medical and Health Officer Department of Health and Family Welfare, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Yadav, Advocate For State / Respondents : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, GA Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per, Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 31/07/2026 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the Applicant. Also heard Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, learned Government Advocate for the RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.07.31 16:32:31 +0530 2 / 8 respondents/State. 2. The present review petition has been preferred under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking review of the judgment dated 22.07.2025 passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No.503 of 2025. 3. The facts, in brief, are that pursuant to an advertisement dated 18.07.2016 issued by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board for appointment to the post of Pharmacist Grade-II, the review petitioner participated in the selection process and secured 5th position in the district merit list pertaining to District Rajnandgaon. According to the petitioner, though he was placed in the merit list, he was neither issued any appointment order nor individually informed regarding verification of his original documents. It is his case that upon making a representation on 31.12.2016, he came to know that he had been declared absent/disqualified. 4. Questioning the aforesaid action, the petitioner instituted WPS No.755 of 2017. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, dismissed the writ petition by order dated 17.04.2025 holding that notice regarding verification of documents had been duly published on the official website, in the newspapers as well as on the notice board of the office of the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Rajnandgaon. The learned Single Judge further noticed that the recruitment process had already attained finality and the selected candidates, whose appointments would be directly affected in the event of interference, had not been impleaded as 3 / 8 parties. 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner preferred Writ Appeal No.503 of 2025. The Division Bench, after independently examining the matter, concurred with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge and observed that the petitioner had failed to appear for verification of documents despite publication of notice through recognized modes and that the recruitment process had already been completed in the year 2017-18. The Division Bench further observed that the selected candidates had not been impleaded and, finding no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, dismissed the writ appeal on 22.07.2025. 6. The petitioner thereafter approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition No.65487/2025. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also dismissed the Special Leave Petition on 05.01.2026. 7. Learned counsel for the review petitioner would submit that subsequent to dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, the petitioner obtained certain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is contended that the RTI reply clearly discloses that no individual notice or communication regarding verification of documents was ever issued to the petitioner and, therefore, the very basis on which the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench proceeded stands demolished. It is argued that the said RTI reply constitutes discovery of a new and important matter within the meaning of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC which could not be produced earlier despite due diligence. It is further 4 / 8 submitted that after obtaining the RTI reply, the petitioner instituted a fresh writ petition bearing WPS No.4406/2026 impleading all the selected candidates as parties. However, during the course of hearing on 17.6.2026, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the said writ petition with liberty to approach the appropriate forum. It is submitted that the liberty so granted entitled the petitioner to maintain the present review petition. 8. According to the review petitioner, while deciding the writ appeal this Court had treated non-impleadment of selected candidates as one of the reasons for declining interference. According to the petitioner, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amrit Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand & Others, Civil Appeal Nos.13950-13951 of 2024 decided on 10.02.2025 (Annexure-A-7) has categorically held that where the selection process itself is arbitrary or void in law, non-impleadment of selected candidates is not fatal. It is, therefore, argued that there exists an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the judgment dated 22.07.2025 rendered in WA No.503/2025. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the review petition and submitted that no ground whatsoever within the limited scope of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC has been made out. It is submitted that all the issues now sought to be urged were substantially considered while deciding the writ petition as well as the writ appeal. According to the learned counsel, the judgment, which is sought to be reviewed herein, has already been affirmed by the Supreme Court in the SLP preferred by the review petitioner. The RTI reply does not disclose any new fact having 5 / 8 a direct bearing upon the conclusions already recorded by this Court. Rather, the petitioner is merely attempting to re-agitate the matter by placing additional material in support of the very submissions which already stood concluded. It is further submitted that the writ appeal was not dismissed solely on the ground of non-impleadment of selected candidates. This Court had independently affirmed the finding that notice regarding verification of documents had been published through the official website, newspapers and notice board; that the petitioner admittedly did not participate in the verification process; and that the recruitment had attained finality long back. It is contended that the subsequent reliance placed upon the judgment in Amrit Yadav (supra) is wholly misconceived as the said decision turned on its own peculiar facts where the appointment process itself was found to be void ab initio, whereas no such finding exists in the present case. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the material available on record. 11. It is also of considerable significance that the judgment sought to be reviewed was not only rendered by this Court after considering the rival submissions on merits, but the said judgment was thereafter carried in challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, upon consideration of the matter, declined to interfere and dismissed the Special Leave Petition on 05.01.2026. Once the challenge to the judgment of this Court has been carried before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and no interference has been considered necessary, this Court would be slow in exercising its review 6 / 8 jurisdiction unless a patent error apparent on the face of the record or any other ground strictly falling within the parameters of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is demonstrably established. The review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to secure a rehearing on merits merely because the review petitioner has subsequently procured additional material or seeks to advance submissions which either were or could have been urged at the time of hearing of the writ appeal. 12. In the present case, the petitioner consciously availed every available judicial remedy. The challenge to the recruitment process was first adjudicated by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.755 of 2017. The findings recorded therein were affirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.503 of 2025 after independent consideration of the record. Thereafter, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution, which also declined to interfere. Only thereafter, upon obtaining an RTI reply, the petitioner instituted another writ petition, withdrew the same with liberty to approach the appropriate forum and has now sought review of the judgment dated 22.07.2025. The sequence of events unmistakably demonstrates that what is sought in the guise of review is not correction of an error apparent on the face of the record but a fresh adjudication on the basis of additional material and new legal submissions. Such an exercise falls completely outside the ambit of review jurisdiction. 13. It is well settled that review proceedings cannot be permitted to become an unending process whereby a litigant, after unsuccessfully pursuing the matter before the High Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and 7 / 8 thereafter collecting additional material, repeatedly seeks reconsideration of the same controversy. The law attaches finality to judicial proceedings and review is an exception to that rule. Unless the case squarely falls within the limited parameters of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, the finality attached to the judgment cannot be permitted to be unsettled. In the considered opinion of this Court, none of the grounds urged by the review petitioner satisfy the statutory requirements warranting review of the judgment dated 22.07.2025. 14. The scope of review jurisdiction is narrow and confined to errors apparent on the face of the record or if a relevant provision of law had been overlooked. In other words, it is only a patent error which is amenable to review and not an error which may have to be discovered by a process of reasoning and what may be called a virtual re-hearing of the matter. In the garb of a Review Petition, this Court cannot sit in judgment over its own order. Therefore, we are not satisfied that the Review application is maintainable. If the petitioner is aggrieved, the remedy is different. 15. 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, 8 / 8 Avijit 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 LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 692). 16. Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Malleeswari v. K. Suguna & Another, 2025 INSC 1080, SLP (C) No. 12787/2025 decided on 08.09.2025, reiterated the aforesaid view. 17. Accordingly, finding no ground warranting exercise of review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, the review petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul