1 CGHC010203462026 2026:CGHC:33075-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 201 of 2026 Amit Yadav S/o Shri Prem Kumar Yadav Aged About 42 Years R/o Near Teer Bidi Company Nakapara, Charama P.S.Charama Tahsil -Kanker, Civil And Revenue District -Kanker, Uttar Bastar (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through -The Secretary, Town Administration And Devlopment Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Mantralaya, P.S. Mandir Hasoud New Raipur, District -Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Town Administration And Development , R.D.A. Building, Raipur Tahsil And District -Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Panchayat Narharpur , Tahsil -Narayanpur Civil And Revenue District -Kanker, Uttar Bastar (C.G.) 4 - Nand Kumar S/o Late Ramji Tiwari Aged About 49 Years Purana Nakapara Charama P.S. Charama, Civil And Revenue, District Kanker, Uttar Bastar C.G. 5 - Neelkunth Mandavi S/o Shri Budhram Mandavi Aged About 44 Years R/o Ward No.1, Nagar Panchayat Naharpur Tehsil And P.S. Narayanpur Civil And Revenue, District Kanker, Uttar Bastar C.G. 6 - Shri Likesh Sonwanshi S/o Shri Jhadu Ram Sonwanshi Aged About 33 Years R/o Naharpur Tehsil And P.S. Naharpur Civil And Revenue, District Kanker, Uttar Bastar C.G. 7 - Sarita Sahu D/o Haldhar Aged About 37 Years R/o M.G. Ward No. 14 Kanker P.S. And Tehsil Kanker Civil And Revenue District Kanker Uttar Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondents RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.07.31 16:32:30 +0530 2 (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Tiwari, Advocate (through video conferencing). For State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 31.07.2026 1. By this present review petition, the petitioner is seeking review of order dated 19/11/2025 passed by this Court in W.A. No. 835/2025. 2. The case of the review petitioner is that the petitioner is a selected candidate as per the selection process initiated by respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 has issued advertisement on 11.10.2012 and modified the advertisement on 30.10.2012. The petitioner and other candidates (other writ petitioners) have applied for appointment on various posts and vide order dated 11.03.2013 and 12.03.2013 they were selected. In pursuance of selection, they reported for joining the duty but the same was not allowed and it has been informed them vide memo dated 15.03.2013 that the selection process has been stayed. 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner and other candidates have filed writ petitions bearing WPS No.1301/2013 (Likesh Sonwanshi & Ors Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) (review petitioner herein was the petitioner No.5) and other connected matter before the learned Single 3 Judge, which were dismissed vide order dated 02/05/2023 by holding thus at para 7 and 8:- “7. Thus, in view of the foregoing discussion, it is quite vivid that the selection process has been conducted by the authority concerned dehors the direction given by the Director, Directorate of Urban Administration & Development, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) to Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Narharpur not to proceed with the selection process vide its order dated 15.03.2013 still the selection process has been conducted, therefore, it cannot be said that selection process was conducted in fair and partial manner, as such, this Court does not find any irregularity or illegality in not finalizing the selection process and not giving the joining to the petitioners after their selection. 8. Consequently, the writ petitions, being devoid of substance, are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.” 4. Against the said order, the review petitioner approached this Court by filing writ appeal bearing W.A. No. 564/2024 which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to take recourse to law before the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, the review petitioner has filed MCC No.954/2025, which was disposed of vide order dated 22/09/2025 on the ground that no such pleading was made in the original petition to recall the order dated 02/05/2023 passed in WPS No.1301/2023. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the review petitioner again preferred writ appeal bearing WA No.835/2025 which was dismissed by order dated 19.11.2025, which is sought to be reviewed herein, by this Court holding thus at para 4 to 7:- “4. As per the office note dated 03.11.2025, the appeal is reported to be barred by 855 days. Despite this, the appellants have not filed any application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. No 4 explanation whatsoever has been placed on record to justify such an inordinate delay. 5. The office note further reveals that several other defects were also pointed out by the Registry at the time of scrutiny, which demonstrates that the appeal has been filed in a highly casual manner, without attending to the basic procedural requirements expected in the filing of an intra- Court appeal. 6. This Court is of the considered opinion that when the appeal itself is hopelessly barred by limitation and no effort has been made to seek condonation of delay, the appellants cannot be permitted to maintain the present appeal. The additional defects noted by the Registry only reinforce the conclusion that the appeal has not been filed with due diligence. 7. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed as barred by limitation.” 6. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that Writ Appeal No. 835 of 2025 came to be dismissed solely on the ground of limitation, as no application for condonation of delay accompanied the appeal. The merits of the matter were, therefore, never examined. Learned counsel further submits that the period from 21.08.2024 to 22.09.2025 deserves to be excluded while computing limitation, as the petitioner had been bona fide and diligently prosecuting the remedies available to him e.g., Writ Appeal No. 564 of 2024 and M.C.C. No. 954 of 2025, in terms of the liberty expressly granted by this Court. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner ought not to be non-suited on the ground of limitation when the delay occurred on account of the bona fide pursuit of remedies before the appropriate forum. 5 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand would support the order passed by this Court in the writ appeal and prays for dismissal of the present review petition. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the review petition as also the order under review. 9. The present review petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had earlier filed WA No. 564/2024, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 04/10/2024 with liberty to take recourse of law before the learned Single Judge. After dismissal of the Writ Appeal, he preferred MCC No. 954/2025, which was disposed of by order dated 22/09/2025. Subsequently, he preferred Writ Appeal No. 835/2025 which was dismissed because there was no application for condonation of delay was filed. The grounds raised by the petitioner that the delay was because of litigating in earlier Writ Appeal and MCC, cannot be a ground even for entertainment of W.A. No. 835/2025 because W.A. No. 564/2024 was already dismissed as withdrawn and the same relief cannot be re-agitated by filing a fresh Writ Appeal. 10. Even, bare perusal of the order under review, it is manifest that the findings recorded by this Court in paragraphs 4 to 6 of the order passed in W.A. No. 835/2025, this Court finds no ground warranting exercise of review jurisdiction. The review petitioner has repeatedly pursued proceedings arising out of the same cause of action. Significantly, W.A. No. 835/2025 was dismissed on the ground that it was hopelessly barred by limitation, no application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay had been filed, and the appeal suffered 6 from several procedural defects, reflecting a lack of due diligence on the part of the petitioner. The said findings have attained finality and cannot be circumvented by invoking the limited jurisdiction of review. A review petition is maintainable only in the event of an error apparent on the face of the record. The petitioner has failed to point out any such error or ground warranting interference. In the absence of any apparent error on the face of the record or any sufficient reason to review the order, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present review petition. 11. 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. 12. 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, 7 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). 13. 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. 14. Applying the aforesaid well settled principles of law and in view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that no error apparent on the face of the record has been demonstrated in the order dated 19/11/2025 passed in WA No.835/2025. The present review petition, in substance, seeks re-argument and re-appreciation of the matter on merits, which is impermissible within the limited scope of review jurisdiction. The present review petition substantially seeks reconsideration of the findings already recorded by this Court on appreciation of the material available on record. Such a course is clearly beyond the permissible ambit of review jurisdiction. No ground warranting exercise of review powers is, therefore, made out. 15. Accordingly, the review petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Gowri/Rahul